asked the Minister for Agriculture when it is intended to provide Siúicre Éireann c.p.t. with the £18 million balance of the £75 million equity capital promised to it in 1982; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Siúicre Éireann.
18.
The Sugar Manufacture (Amendment) Act, 1982, authorised an increase in the company's share capital to £75 million and since then successive Governments have provided £50 million in new equity bringing the total capital issued to £57 million. The Act did not require that shares to the amount of the full authorised capital should be taken up and no undertaking that this would be done has been given.
Is the Minister aware that the company have carried out a major rationalisation programme over those years, amounting to a loss of about 1,000 jobs, and that the company need major capital investment? Is he aware that they had planned a major capital investment in 1985 which they cannot now carry out?
This Government and the previous Government have given £57 million to this company. It has helped the Sugar Company tremendously. That was conditional on a rationalisation proggramme being put into operation by the Sugar Company. A lot of the work we requested has been done but not all. We are continually asking the company to complete the programme that was initiated some years ago.
What portion of the programme has not been carried out?
I cannot give the Deputy a quantitative figure but we are awaiting further plans from the company in that regard.
In view of the fact that equity capital, loans or grants were not given in 1984, will the Minister say if the lack of equity capital for investment is the reason why the Sugar Company did not carry out these plans?
No, I would not say that. The Deputy is making it out to be a chicken and egg situation but I would not look upon it as that. The money will be forthcoming in the future if the plan is put through. There is no question about that.
Of the £57 million made available to the Sugar Company by the State over the last three years, how much was invested in each factory?
I do not have those figures.
Will the Minister accept that the fact that the Tuam factory has consistently been denied sufficient capital investment to modernise the plant——
That does not arise on this general question.
——despite the fact that the throughput of beet has increased and the campaign and efforts of the staff have been of maximum benefit to the State, is having a major effect on the viability of Tuam within the whole CSE complex?
I would not agree. I have repeatedly stated that it is our intention to keep the Tuam factory open. There are no plans to the contrary. If the plant has any deficiencies or needs any special work carried out to keep it in operation the money will be provided.
Do I take that as an indication that the Minister will be exerting maximum pressure on the board of CSE, and the executives, to ensure that sufficient capital is put into Tuam so that it is maintained at modern standards?
I have always stated that we will keep Tuam in operation. That means that anything necessary, within reason, will be provided.
In regard to Tuam, and the capital investment needed, will the Minister agree that, because it is essential to keep that factory open for social reasons with the result that the Sugar Company are carrying a net loss, he should ensure that the investment for Tuam is given to the Sugar Company? Otherwise, the company will not be able to carry out the capital investment needed there.
That is a very wide-ranging question.
Commercially it is not viable for the company to gain the cash flow to put investment back into Tuam and, therefore, the State, since it insists on keeping it open for social reasons, should provide the money.
Any money that is necessary to keep it operational will be provided.
We are involved in a debate on a general question about the Sugar Company but it has been turned into a specific question about the Tuam factory. That is not in order.
It is about capital investment.
It is a question of whether a balance has been paid or not.
It is with regard to the disbursing of State funds. May I ask a final supplementary question?
No, I have permitted the Deputy to ask several questions.
Is the Minister aware that the sugar packing section of the factory has been closed down?
Why does the Deputy not put down a question about that? That is a separate question.
If I put down a separate question it would be ruled out of order on the basis that it is a matter for Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann.
It is not in order now and that is another reason why I should disallow the question.