Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jan 2005

Vol. 179 No. 1

Sugar Beet Industry: Motion (Resumed).

Mr. Bradford

We are discussing market reforms and structural reforms in Irish agriculture and I am aware that a similar debate is taking place in China. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Coughlan. As she is aware, she has the full support of every Member of the Oireachtas in the challenges which face her at European Union level as talks move towards a conclusion on the EU sugar proposals. It is important that she has full political support, in as far as is possible and politically practicable, from all sides of the House for her endeavours at European Union level. The future of the Irish sugar industry is at stake in the weeks and months ahead. The Minister, her party colleagues and all of us know full well that if the original EU proposals, or any similar set of proposals, are implemented it will sound the death knell of the Irish sugar industry.

The Minister put the issue in context when she referred to the fact that Ireland has 1.1% of the European sugar quota. That shows what a small player we are on the European and world stage. However, within Irish agriculture, the sugar industry remains a core sector. At one time we had four sugar factories and now that number is down to two with the intention of moving to a one-factory situation. Almost 4,000 growers are dependent on sugar beet for their livelihood. The number of people employed directly and indirectly is in the region of 10,000 which indicates we are dealing with a significant industry. The EU is now threatening the core of this industry.

A document on the reform of the sugar sector was issued by the European Commission in Brussels on 14 July 2004 to the European Council and Parliament. This was brought to the attention of the Sub-committee on EU Scrutiny of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, on which I serve, on 9 September last year. We immediately referred it to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. All Members of the House, regardless of whether they are from rural or urban areas, are aware that these proposals would decimate this indigenous industry. We must send a strong message to Europe that the Irish political family is united behind the Minister in her attempt to secure the future of the industry.

The Minister said her negotiating hand is not in any way weakened by the recent Greencore decision to shut the Carlow plant. However, her junior ministerial colleague, the former IFA president, Deputy Parlon, thinks differently. I am not making a political point. The view of the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, is on the record, as is the view of the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon. Nobody can be totally certain of what will be the outcome. It must be most disappointing for the workers and growers in Carlow and the broader area and everybody involved in the local economy to see Greencore take such a sudden decision. We are very relieved in Mallow that it has been decided to retain the plant there. We consider that a wise decision. There have been many improvements in Mallow in recent years, not just from an infrastructural point of view but from a work practice point of view. The Mallow plant has a future as long as the sugar industry has a future. The challenge for this House and for the Minister is to address not where the factories are located but whether the industry will survive.

Senator Ryan stated that we cannot ignore the future of agriculture and hope the problems will go away. I have called for a debate on the future of agriculture in the House on a number of occasions in the past 18 months. We need to examine the question of young people in agriculture and the matter of diversification. If we are to diversify Irish agriculture, the sugar industry must play its part. We can ill afford to lose any of our tiny 1.1% sugar quota.

The Minister outlined the set of proposals coming from Brussels which include a quota reduction of 16%, a 37% cut in price and an inadequate level of compensation. If adopted, these measures would wipe out the sugar industry, which would result in the loss of up to 10,000 jobs. We cannot allow this to happen. Unusually in the context of EU agricultural negotiations we cannot count on the support of some of the countries that generally stand by us, especially France. That will cause political problems. It is important that the House unites on this issue and that we work with our sister parties across Europe to stress the importance of this industry to this country.

The Minister outlined her views on the issue of quota transfer. I welcome the fact that she appears set to strongly oppose quota transfer. That is very important because there are regions and countries waiting to snap up the Irish quota if it should become available. Now might not be the time to reach a conclusion on the ownership of quota issue. I hope the position is as straightforward as that outlined by Senator Callanan. I urge the Minister to clarify the matter and bring it to a conclusion as soon as possible. I accept that the advice of the Attorney General has been sought. However, beet farmers would like to know the exact position concerning quota ownership as soon as possible. I urge the Minister to expedite this matter.

The motions before the House are similar. We all have a reasonable command of the English language. I am disappointed we have not been able to reach a joint approach. Although the House will divide politically on the motion and amendment, it is vital that the political establishment takes a single approach. We must show a united front to the Minister's colleagues in Brussels. Sugar beet is an indigenous industry, which has been part and parcel of Irish agriculture since the mid-1920s. We will not accept any set of proposals, which would bring that industry to an end. We are cognisant of the changes that have to take place in agriculture at European level, and to the sugar regime in particular at a world trading level. The Irish sugar industry must be maintained. The Minister must put the security of this industry at the top of her agenda for the medium term. I and my party wish her well. We are united behind what she is attempting to do for this industry at European level. Irish farming would not be the same without the sugar industry.

Dr. Mansergh

I thank the Fine Gael Party for tabling this motion which is well worth debating. I congratulate the Minister on a very lucid speech which sets out all the considerations. I also compliment our spokesperson on a very judicious speech.

I am afraid the most I have had to do with sugar beet is helping with the harvest in eastern Austria near the Iron Curtain 40 years ago, which was quite hard work when it was only semi-mechanised.

What is proposed will be a wrench for the workforce, the families and the town of Carlow, but we are referring to one of the first enterprises in independent Ireland and one of the first State enterprises. When I became involved as a political adviser to Fianna Fáil in 1981, one of the first political battles fought and won — at least for a time — was over the closure of the Tuam sugar factory. The economy was in a very different state in those days and real regional problems existed in the north west. The plant was closed in 1986. The price our colleague, Deputy Michael O'Kennedy, had to pay for being Minister for Agriculture was to accept and see through the closure of the sugar factory in Thurles, from which I accept, as Senator Coonan pointed out, it took the town a number of years to recover. I admire the town of Thurles. It is a reasonably thriving and go-ahead Tipperary town today but it took some time to reach that point, which I freely acknowledge.

Mr. Coonan

It is still recovering.

Dr. Mansergh

Carlow is a town which I greatly admire. It is a fine progressive town. I do not believe that the closure will hit it as hard in qualitative terms as Thurles, partly because the overall economic conditions are quite different. I am sure that fairly generous redundancy terms can be negotiated and that State agencies will try to assist in filling an economic gap, which will be easier than, was the case for Thurles in the late 1980s.

In the choice between the two towns, many criteria applied. For example, the Mallow factory has the advantage of being a couple of miles outside the town and, if there is increased throughput, there will be fewer environmental problems if the plant is located a bit further away from the town. It is also connected to the railway line, although Carlow could also have been since the plant is beside the line.

I go a certain distance in agreeing with Senator Ryan's assertion that one cannot play King Canute. We normally urge private companies to anticipate and move ahead of developments and be prepared rather than wait for the last possible moment before adjusting and making changes. Despite similarities between the Government and Fine Gael motions, the latter contains an element of telling what is now a private company what it must do, namely, that it must reverse this decision and take no other actions until negotiations are concluded. I accept that Greencore has perhaps in a commercial sense been a bit opportunistic in moving ahead with this decision now. However, half the time that is what we expect of private commercial companies. Given the state of the economy at present, I would hesitate to dictate to the company. Nevertheless, I would have no particular difficulty if the company could be persuaded in its own interests to defer the decision for a year or so.

The Minister has made clear what the golden share relates to and what it does not, namely, that it does not give her the power to stop this development. From the farmers' point of view if a rail depot is established in the Carlow area, they would still be moving beet from one point to another. The rail depot at Wellington Bridge worked very well except for when the Cahir viaduct collapsed during the beet season, although it has since been put back in very fine working order. I travelled across it when it was re-opened and presumably nearly all the beet will travel by rail now, which may have positive environmental benefits.

Under the ethos of the EU, Ireland has the right to be self-sufficient in sugar production. As I understand it, Ireland is usually somewhere between 99% and 101% self-sufficient, depending on the harvest. Alan Matthews of Trinity College has an article in today's edition of The Irish Times, which suggests that we should give over sugar production to the real world. However, none of us can foresee the future. One of the purposes of the Common Agricultural Policy was to provide for food security. If we are able to provide security in this area, we are not under some moral obligation to give it up, particularly as the ACP countries do quite well under the sugar regime as against countries like Brazil. We need to be a bit cautious about using the Third World argument. We are not dumping sugar on world markets.

Reference was made to France and Ireland blocking progress. On this issue, unusually, we are on opposite sides so I do not think the Minister will be awarded the Légion d'Honneur for her battle on this issue. Senator Callanan put his finger on the issue when he stated that what was required was to ensure the survival of the industry. There have been difficult negotiations. I have great faith in the Minister and our negotiating team to get a much better result than the original proposals. I fully agree that our position has not been undermined. On the contrary, one can strengthen one's negotiating position if it looks as if one is rationalising one's industry and getting it in order.

Perhaps our colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, was slipping back into his role as a former president of the IFA. We have an absolute right to defend our sugar industry but we must put ourselves in the best possible position to do so. Therefore, I support the amendment to the motion.

Mr. Bannon

I welcome the Minister to the House to debate this very important motion. As we know, some 3,800 farmers in Ireland grow sugar beet, which represents an annual income of €80 million to Irish farmers and in the region of €140 million in total to the Irish economy. The production of beet is mostly confined to the southern counties of the south midlands and Munster, upon which many people directly depend.

Earlier this month the Minister for Agriculture and Food pledged to fight against the proposed EU reforms of the sugar regime as a priority this year. She stated that she felt the proposals would be the "death knell for the industry". In light of such a statement, I am sure the Minister will support the appeal to her in this motion to strongly resist any EU proposal which would threaten the long-term viability of sugar beet production. The amendment does not differ too much from the Fine Gael motion and it appears the Government parties are saying the same as Fine Gael. I am thankful that the Government has nearly come on side with Fine Gael on this issue.

Mr. Callanan

Good man, Senator Bannon.

Mr. Bannon

Sugar beet has long been an important part of the tillage sector, contributing to the economic and social development of rural Ireland since 1926. For those lucky enough to hold contracts, beet is a critical component of profitability, being much more valuable than alternate tillage crops.

However, we now face radical reforms of the EU sugar regime, the first since it was established in 1968. This will strengthen the EU's hand in the current round of world trade talks. However, these proposals must be fought tooth and nail at EU level, including the cutting of sugar support prices, reducing production quotas, decreasing export subsidies and the introduction of partial compensation. These proposals provide for reforms to commence in 2005, rather than 2006, as provided under current regulations. A cut of 25% in the price of beet in 2005-06 is provided for and a 37% cut, plus a European quota reduction of 2.8 million tonnes or 16% over four years, is provided for in 2007. Ministers from Spain, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Portugal and Ireland are opposed to the reforms. It is important that these countries work together to block these proposals. I am glad that the newer EU member states are on side with Ireland on this issue. It is imperative for the Government to ensure the EU designates sugar as a sensitive product, subject only to minimal tariff reduction, as has already happened for dairy and beef products from Ireland.

Pre-empting the EU proposals and anticipating their negative effects on the industry, the decision by Greencore to close its Carlow plant from March 2005, with a loss of 300 jobs, is definitive proof of the threat posed by the EU proposals and their effects on sugar beet production. If the EU proposals go through in their current form, they could lead to the inevitable end of sugar production in Ireland. An impact assessment carried out by the European Commission into the proposed reforms points out that Ireland is one of the most vulnerable countries. A senior Commission official indicated to my colleague, Ms Mairéad McGuinness, MEP, that there could be no sugar industry in Ireland after the reforms.

The implications of the reforms on the workers in countries such as Brazil must also be considered. The Brazilian sugar crop topped 26 million tonnes in 2004. Brazil, Thailand and Australia are the largest exporters in the world. Ireland is permitted to produce 199,000 tonnes of sugar. Consumption of sugar in Ireland for 2003 was approximately 158,000 tonnes and the actual figure for production in that period was 223,746 tonnes. The dark side of the industry in Brazil is that it is controlled by 100 growers who use what can only be described as slave labour from Mexico to harvest the crop. In doing so, they destroy rain forests to expand their crop bases. There are concerns in Brazil that the reforms would allow already environmentally unsustainable sugar production to expand even further to the detriment not only of the environment, but also of the many low-paid workers. In many European countries, the sugar industry has been decimated, giving companies like Greencore the perfect excuse to cut costs and restructure a business that has become extremely profitable for all concerned.

Union leaders, farmers and local politicians, including Senator Browne, claim that Greencore's pre-emptive move has weakened Ireland's hand in the EU reform negotiations. In the light of this shocking closure, Greencore must ensure its employees suffer no disadvantage on account of its decision to close the Carlow plant and move all its beet processing to its Mallow plant. Farmers who have been growing beet for the Carlow plant will now have their crops taken by rail to the Mallow plant. It is imperative that they should not be penalised by having to meet the extra cost involved in transporting their beet to the Mallow plant. Under EU regulations, Irish Sugar pays transport costs of up to a maximum of €7 million. However, this is not likely to cover the increased transport cost incurred, with 48% of Ireland's sugar beet being transported to Mallow by rail. This replaces the 12%, which was transported in this manner last year.

Up to 189 full-time and 137 seasonal jobs will be axed at the Carlow plant, with 35 full-time and 16 part-time jobs going to the Mallow plant. Total employment will be cut from 614 jobs to 288, with 63 jobs remaining in Carlow in sales, marketing, packaging and other areas. Members on this side of the House ask the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, to open negotiations with Greencore to urge it to reconsider its decision and take no further action on this matter until the EU reforms on the sugar quota have been concluded. He must realise that the decision to close this plant after 79 years is a devastating blow for Carlow town, the workforce and the sugar beet industry. Local farmers gave loyalty for many years to the company. Such a decision is premature and detrimental to both Carlow and the economy as a whole. There is also the danger that the decision has made Greencore vulnerable to a take-over threat which, if it were to succeed, with the transfer of the Irish sugar quota, would see the ownership in the hands of foreign investors. Their focus would be on a quick return, not on the viability of Irish beet production. It is essential that the Minister of State clarifies ownership of the sugar quota and takes all necessary steps to retain it for Irish growers. The IFA is totally opposed to the transfer of national quotas between member states. The Minister must introduce legislation to legally vest the ownership of Ireland's sugar quota in the hands of the beet growers.

Mr. Moylan

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, to the House, on this his first occasion to attend Private Members' business. I compliment him and the Minister for Agriculture and Food on their excellent work.

Valid points have been made by speakers in support of the amendment. From meeting farmers involved in beet production, I have learned of their concerns about transport arrangements and costs. The Greencore decision to close its Carlow plant will disadvantage many farmers, many of whom are successful and efficient beet growers, in the midland counties of Offaly, Laois and Carlow. Their concerns are justified, particularly as the decision was taken quickly. Many farmers accept that if the decision had been delayed for another year, it would have given them the opportunity to decide whether to stay in beet production and make proper transport arrangements for their produce to the Mallow plant. I am concerned that the rail facilities for transporting beet are not up to speed. In an article in the farming section of the Irish Independent, the chairman of Carlow County Council claimed the proposed facility in Bagenalstown would not be in place in the next 12 months. In its absence, a situation would arise whereby a significant amount of extra beet would have to be transported by road. One would probably arrive at a situation in Mallow where there would be queues of lorries for miles and miles, causing road blocks and so on. People involved in the transport business calculate that they will travel from A to B, for which there is a particular charge. If they travel to Mallow and spend two or three hours at the side of a road waiting to unload the beet, who will pay for this? I have no doubt it will be the farmers. We must take this aspect into consideration.

I urge Greencore to consider postponing its decision for at least 12 months until the infrastructure is in place to ensure farmers will be in a position to deliver the beet to Mallow when the time comes. An investment in the region of €25 million will be required in Mallow to deal with the extra beet delivered there. Some €25 million will not be spent very quickly in the development of a factory. Someone said to me that Greencore might spend a large proportion of that money on remunerating some of the directors. Perhaps the less said about that, the better. I understand it is a commercial decision on the part of Greencore. Before making a decision, Greencore should take on board the views of the people who have been loyal to the company over a number of years. It is accepted by many beet growers that, given some time, they will put facilities in place to enable them to transport their beet to Mallow.

Another point that should be made is that beet growers have done reasonably well over the years. This group of farmers were in a position to lease land and pay a reasonably good price for it. If they are taken out of the picture, many farmers in the midlands with reasonably good land will lose out financially because beet growers will not be in a position to lease the land for 11 months. This is something of which we should not lose sight because many of these people need that extra money. Many people who let their land over a number of years will not be in a position to benefit from any payments that may apply in this case. The Minister outlined that she made it clear during discussions on beet production in the Council of Ministers that the EU proposals are unacceptable. This will be another fight for the Minister who must ensure that farmers are allowed to make a reasonable living from the land, particularly from beet growing.

A number of farmers indicated that people who were good at beet growing and who moved with the times made a reasonable living from it. Beet growers also had an opportunity to make extra money by allowing farmers involved in the sheep meat business to feed the beet tops to their sheep. This will be a loss to people who budgeted on taking X number of acres of beet tops.

The loss of employment in Carlow, which is a fairly large town, will be severe. It is a huge loss to any town to lose a couple of hundred jobs, including a number of part-time jobs. If farmers change their production methods and fewer farmers produce beet, it will mean a loss in employment. Contractors involved in the harvesting of beet employed many people, whether part time or full time, in seasonal work. Commercial companies make difficult decisions and move on. Given what we read, the board members are better looked after than many. However, they should consider extending the deadline by at least one year. This would give farmers, particularly farmers in the midland region, an opportunity to make alternative transport arrangements to transport their beet to Mallow.

Mr. J. Phelan

I support the Fine Gael motion. I took part in the protest march yesterday in Carlow town to mark the outrage that exists among ordinary Carlow people, including factory workers, producers and the wider community in the south-east region who will be adversely affected by the closure of the plant in Carlow town.

Senator Moylan spoke about the traditional position of beet farmers and the fact that the beet industry has been one of the most profitable sectors of agriculture over the past number of years. It is fair to say that milk and beet producers are the two sectors of agriculture that have done reasonably well over the past number of years. However, the recent announcement means that the future is far from certain for milk producers. If people's worst fears become a reality, then there may not be a beet sector in the future. This is of great concern to someone like me who represents a part of the country where there are a number of producers, including Carlow and the immediate catchment area.

It is fair to say that the sugar factory in Carlow has been the bedrock of industry in that part of the country. Carlow has performed well in recent years, as have many towns throughout the country. This success was based firmly on the industrial employment generated for hundreds of people in the plant and by the incomes secured for farming families who supplied the plant in Carlow town.

I agree with Senator Browne regarding the proposed depot now being signalled by Greencore as a solution to the problem of transporting all the sugar beet from the Carlow catchment area to the plant in Mallow. It seems that as yet there is no planning permission for such a depot and the announcement of its establishment would see the plant close before the beginning of the next beet campaign. It is clear to all involved in politics, who know how the planning system works, that such a depot could not be operational by the time the next beet campaign starts. I share the wish of other speakers that Greencore would at least postpone its decision so the factory is not closed in 2005.

Many of the beet producers have invested over the past few years in facilities for transporting beet. They have invested a lot of money in machinery and equipment to bring the product from the farm to the factory and these people will be at a severe disadvantage. If one is travelling to Mallow from where I live, it is a long way and the roads in that part of the country are not in good condition. As previous speakers have noted, it would be incredible if this particular cost were to be passed on to the producer. Previous speakers have also pointed out that the plant in Carlow continues to be very profitable, making profits of some €10 million last year. I do not see how the board in all good sense could make the decision it made two weeks ago.

It was also remarkable that after we were informed of the decision to close the plant two weeks ago, each producer got a very detailed brochure from the company on the following day outlining the reasons the plant would be closed. They must think we came down in the last shower if they expect us to believe that a decision made the previous day resulted in these pamphlets being printed and posted to every grower in the country. Clearly the board decision was not made a number of weeks ago but some time earlier.

I missed the comments made earlier by the Minister for Agriculture and Food and cannot comment on what she said in this House but I urge her to use her role and the State's role — the State still has a stake in Greencore — to ensure the future viability of the sugar beet sector. It would be remiss of the Minister not to use the opportunity which exists while the State retains a shareholding in Greencore.

I and most beet producers worry that the Carlow plant closure will be followed by the Mallow plant closure. By means of strong reassurances from Greencore we were all led to believe that the closure of the factory in Tuam would consolidate the beet sector for the future, that there would be no need for future closures and redundancies and that we could continue into the future with some degree of certainty. It is clear that there is very little certainty in the beet sector. People trying to make their living from sugar beet production, many of whom live in my area, now find themselves in a very precarious position.

There is an alternative use for sugar beet which some other speakers may have noted. It can be used as a biofuel. As I understand it, the terms of the legislation which governs that area, and grant aid for that area, explicitly exclude sugar beet from grant aid if it is developed as a biofuel. I urge that to protect the long-term future of this important sector of the agricultural economy, the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture and Food ensure that grant aid which applies to other products be extended to sugar beet so it can be used as a biofuel in this country in the future.

Mr. O’Brien

I am delighted to speak to the amendment. I welcome my colleague and friend, the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, to the House. This is my first time to address the House in the presence of the Minister of State. I wish him well in his role as Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food. He was an excellent choice and the post was well deserved as he has been a very hard-working and dedicated Deputy from the time he was elected. It was an enormous boost to the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan to see Deputy Smith being promoted to the rank of Minister of State. I congratulate him and his wife Ann.

I am not as familiar as the previous speaker with the Carlow factory and with Greencore. Senator Phelan said it would be Carlow now and Mallow next. How could it be Mallow next when Greencore is prepared to spend some €20 million to €25 million on the upgrading and improvement of the Mallow plant?

Mr. U. Burke

That is what the Government said when the Tuam factory was closed.

Mr. Browne

It is the same thing.

Mr. O’Brien

When the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, addressed the House earlier she also said that a rail system was being promoted for the transport of beet from Wexford to Mallow. This would be very effective as was the rail system in years gone by, in our fathers' time, when cattle were transported by rail. It was a very effective system and it was very unfortunate that in my neck of the woods and that of the Minister, the railway lines were closed. The railways were discontinued and lines were lifted. That was a terrible disservice to our part of the country.

Nevertheless, farmers will certainly get as good and perhaps a better price than before for their beet as a result of the amalgamation. The Minister has assured us that farmers will get the same price and that they will be at no disadvantage in Carlow or surrounding areas as a results of the closure of the Carlow plant. We have seen job losses in the Cavan-Monaghan constituency from time to time but the loss of jobs in County Carlow would be a more serious problem. I understand the factory was established in 1926 and the closure is very unfortunate for people who have worked there for, perhaps, all their lives, and for their families. I sympathise with them. Nevertheless, we must move forward. We saw what happened with creameries. First there was the amalgamation and closure of small co-ops which was followed by the bigger ones. Now we have six major co-ops in the country. There was much dissatisfaction among farmers at the time but there is not a word about the situation now.

Mr. Browne

The age profile of farmers today is different.

Mr. O’Brien

As I said, I am not familiar with the Carlow area. Cavan and Monaghan are certainly not famous for growing sugar beet.

Mr. Browne

Stony grey soils.

Mr. U. Burke

On behalf of Fine Gael I support the motion proposed by Senators Coonan and Browne. The disarray that is discernible on the Government side of the House is unbelievable. Senator Callanan warned against delay which might jeopardise the future of the industry and, in effect, said to get on with it and do it fast, that Carlow was over. Senator Moylan said it was being done too hastily and we must ask for a postponement. Then I heard all the usual promises that we have heard before. I come from a constituency in east Galway where the first factory was closed. The same promises were given then as now. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, said that Enterprise Ireland would be involved in job replacement activity. We were promised that in Tuam as well but the jobs never came. An engineering concern was located in the factory for a couple of months as a token response by the sugar company to the closure in Tuam. Nothing happened. Then it was said that we could have a rail link to Thurles or Carlow. Not only did the sugar factory close, but the railway line closed as well. I believe it clearly indicates——

Mr. Moylan

Under what Government?

Mr. U. Burke

I remind Senator Moylan that at the time of these closures, his party politicised the situation to the ultimate degree. It actually recruited the Archbishop of Tuam and dragged him to Government Buildings when he was quite unable to come in order to emphasise how much of a crime the closure was for the west of Ireland. So it was because the jobs that were, and are, in the sugar factories cannot be replaced. I do not know whether the Minister realised that when she said she would ask her colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, to get replacement jobs.

The Government is destroying the fabric of so many families that have worked in Carlow loyally over the years, either part time or full time, and who have become dependent on it. It appears there is scant regard across the House for the investment of the farmers who have produced beet in those areas, which has been enormous. The numbers not currently involved in producing beet, servicing and supplying the Carlow area on a traditional basis, will deteriorate and decline rapidly. The number of farmers producing beet in the traditional Tuam catchment area may now be counted on one hand. I accept Tuam was in a peripheral area, outside the most beneficial regions for producing beet, but the cessation of beet growing on the periphery of the Carlow region will be a loss to that area as well and it will happen.

On listening to the disarray from the Government side, it is no wonder that the CEO of the sugar company said on the six o'clock news this evening that it was a done deal, over and finished for Carlow. That is a serious situation. However, the Minister was not aware or at least did not declare her awareness of the fact that it was a done deal. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, said he was going to fight on for the retention of the Carlow plant, but he was pandering to the crowd, the people he knew so well, and his colleagues in the IFA. There was not an ounce of sincerity in what he said on that particular occasion. We cannot realistically say there is a chance of survival in Carlow. That is the tragedy and the Government has no plan to overcome that situation. Fianna Fáil played the game in the past to the ultimate degree over Tuam. I am not too sure about Thurles.

With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Senator Cummins.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. U. Burke

I fully empathise with the difficult task the Minister has in fighting for the retention of the quotas and the industry in Ireland. I fully support her and encourage her to do everything possible on this particular issue. However, today it is Carlow and, like Senator Phelan, I believe Mallow is next. That will be the end of the sugar industry in Ireland which was put together by people who would turn in their graves if they knew what was happening today.

Mr. Cummins

I listened to the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, say only yesterday that the decision taken by Greencore would undermine the position of the Minister. However, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, said it would not undermine her position. The Government is in complete disarray on this issue. There is no question about it. I cannot understand how a company decides to close a plant that is making a profit of €10 million. Usually when there are redundancies of that nature, with 350 full-time and part-time jobs being lost, the company concerned has hit rock bottom and is losing money hand over fist. However, this is a company that has made a profit of €10 million from the Carlow plant.

We have assurances from the Minister, for what they are worth, that the farmers will have guarantees on price which will not change and that they may even gain from this situation. However, what are the assurances for more than 300 workers employed in Carlow, families who have worked there for years? These are people who will not get another job because many of them are in their 50s and older. People say the south east is thriving. Outside its north-eastern area, the south east is the least serviced region in the country as far as grant aid, jobs and everything else is concerned. People are not aware of this, but it is a fact. What is on offer for the people of Carlow and the 300 workers and their families dependent on the sugar plant is years on the dole.

This is as a result of the decision made by Greencore. The least it could have done was wait until the rail link was put in place before it carried out this act. However, it will not wait. The same assurances were given in Tuam where they talked about having the rail system in place but the rails were taken up. These is the type of assurance we are hearing tonight. The Government is in disarray and does not know where it is on this issue. The Progressive Democrats are saying one thing while Fianna Fáil is saying another. Fianna Fáil is saying one thing and its own people are saying something else here tonight. We do not know what is happening. What chance is there of the workers and the producers in Carlow getting out of a situation such as this if the Government is in such disarray?

Mr. Coonan

I am most disappointed with the response of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, to the motion. Everything that is in her script I have already read, either in the local or the daily papers and certainly in the Irish Farmers’ Journal. She refused to answer the pressing questions as to whether she knew about or had discussions about the closure or was given reasons for it. Those are pressing issues which the growers and the workers at the Carlow sugar factory want addressed. We have not been told the answers yet this evening.

I wish to address some of the matters raised by Senator Callanan and other speakers who argued that it was time to face the challenge. The farming sector is a section of the community that has faced continuous challenges, especially in the past five or six years. It has never been afraid to face challenges or take on fresh ideas and adapt to new situations. Senator Ryan's point that farmers have their eyes shut and are continuously in the dark, refusing to accept transition, is appalling. I look forward to the farming community dealing with that point. Farmers will not take long to open the Senator's eyes when they hear about that comment.

Senator Mansergh spoke about Thurles but only told part of the story. When the former Deputy, Michael O'Kennedy, was canvassing prior to a general election, he gave a commitment to save the factory. Having been elected, he was made Minister for Agriculture but failed to appoint the working director from the area. Instead he put in someone from Belfast or some place where no one knew anything about the farming industry. On one vote, the sugar factory was closed. Had that not happened, I am sure it would still be here today. Senator Mansergh stated he was sure that there would be a generous redundancy for the families. That is a poor consolation to the workers. The same was said in Roscrea when Antigen Ireland closed down, yet three years later the workers in that factory have not received their full rights. Shame on Senator Mansergh for suggesting such a thing.

Mr. Browne

The same happened inComerama in Kilkenny.

Mr. Coonan

This is a matter of national importance and it should be treated that way. I am disappointed that the Government parties did not agree with our motion. It is basically the same motion as theirs, but we are calling for the decision to be reversed until the EU proposals are sorted out. We should wait and see what comes from the negotiations. Speaker after speaker on the Government side agreed with that. In their heart, they are in favour of what we are proposing and I am going to afford them the opportunity to put into practice what they are saying. I want to thank everyone for contributing to the debate, which was excellent. We hope that the Minister will take on board the many issues that were raised. If the Minister is not willing to give an explanation to the House, he should at least give an explanation to the growers, the farmers, their representatives, the workers and their unions.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 11.

Tá

• Brady, Cyprian.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Callanan, Peter.
• Cox, Margaret.
• Dardis, John.
• Dooley, Timmy.
• Feeney, Geraldine.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Glynn, Camillus.
• Hayes, Maurice.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kett, Tony.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lydon, Donal J.
• MacSharry, Marc.
• Mansergh, Martin.
• Minihan, John.
• Mooney, Paschal C.
• Morrissey, Tom.
• Moylan, Pat.
• Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Phelan, Kieran.
• Scanlon, Eamon.
• Walsh, Jim.
• Walsh, Kate.
• White, Mary M.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

• Bannon, James.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, Fergal.
• Burke, Ulick.
• Coghlan, Paul.
• Coonan, Noel.
• Cummins, Maurice.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Hayes, Brian.
• Henry, Mary.
• Phelan, John.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Moylan and Minihan; Níl, Senators Cummins and Coonan.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Dardis

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.