The Committee Stage is resumed on amendment No. 10. It has been agreed to take amendments Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 27 and substitute amendment No. 28 together. Deputy Kavanagh reported progress.
NEW SECTION.
Sugar Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 10:
In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"3.—All employees of Siúicre Eireann c.p.t. and its subsidiaries shall become members of the staff of the Holding company upon the transfer of undertaking from Siúicre Éireann c.p.t. to the Holding Company.".
—(Deputy Sherlock).
On amendment No. 28 I have posed two questions to the Minister. One was in regard to the inadequacy of the pension fund the proposed for the employees of the Sugar Company and the situation of that fund in the new company. There was some doubt as to the size of the deficit. the Minister was making arrangements for £4.3 million to be included in the new company's funds to meet some of the inadequacies of the fund and the remainder, something like £5.7 million, would be paid into the fund over a period of five years.
The question I put to the Minister was: what exactly was the extent of the deficit in the pension fund and were the arrangements being made adequate? I had also asked whether workers of a new company, under new direction and administration over the period of five years, could be assured that the fund to which they had contributed always would be adequate over that same period. On the assumption that the company are privatised I was endeavouring to establish that there will always be sufficient funds within the company for that purpose over that five-year period.
My second question is in relation to the arrangements for redundancy payments to employees of the company — during the period of establishment of the new company and thereafter — whether the arrangements which had applied since 1981 would continue in the ensuing period and form part of an agreement being made between the unions, the company and the Minister to be filed with the Labour Court. I gave an example of something like five weeks salary for every year of service, plus statutory redundancy. I sought confirmation that those, the best redundancy terms in the period since 1981, would continue to apply.
In the course of his introductory remarks on Second Stage the Minister said:
However, in order to reassure workers on this point I intend moving, on Committee Stage, an amendment underlying the rights of employees. This will specifically provide that the rights which employees of Siúicre Éireann, or its subsidiaries, hold before the date on which the Minister for Finance transfers his shares in Siúicre Éireann to the new holding company will consider to be held by them on and from that transfer date.
We are endeavouring to assure this House, and more importantly workers in the industry, that the arrangements in place before the transfer will remain and, as the Minister said, be lodged as part of an agreement to be drawn up between the company, the Minister and the employees representatives, Congress, with the Labour Court. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that point.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Would the Minister confirm that the meeting which took place on the last occasion we discussed this Bill — that between the unions and the company — agreed terms of redundancy payments acceptable to both sides? If such is the case will he confirm that everybody is happy with those arrangements?
I have two points I want to raise. My amendment No. 12 reads:
Each employee on being transferred to the Holding Company shall hold his/her office or employment on the same terms and under the same conditions as applied to his/her contract of employment immediately prior to the transfer and while in the service of the Holding Company the said terms and conditions shall not be less favourable to him/her than those prevailing immediately prior to the transfer save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with the trade unions or staff associations representing such employees.
Would the Minister confirm that acceptance of that amendment will ensure absolutely that the conditions applying at present to company employees will apply after the transfer? For instance, there is a reference in the document from which the Minister quoted in the matter of redundancy terms that the current redundancy terms being paid by the company are those which emanated from the 1981 conciliation conference; that the company acknowledge that that is the correct position and have no plans to change those terms. In this respect I contend it is not good enough for the company to say that they have no plans to change those terms particularly bearing in mind the haste with which it is proposed to enact this Bill — by the end of this week — when the Irish Sugar Company will be no more. After all, if we repeal the legislation that set up the company then how can the company have any say in such matters as redundancy payments? I view that as a most important issue for the employees and submit that it could be dealt with adequately by acceptance of my amendment No. 12. I should like to revert later to the question of pensions.
Deputy Sherlock says he would like to intervene later on the question of pensions. I have been asked to clarify the matter of the pensions. Perhaps, if Deputy Sherlock made his point in this regard I could deal with all together.
I have several points to make in that regard. I hope the Minister will be in a position to clarify the very strange position — as I see it — in regard to this matter.
First, would the Minister say by what actuarial appraisal the figure of £10 million was arrived at? I was a member of the committee that negotiated the 1984 pension scheme which provided for the dissolution of the then existing sugar industry workers gratuity and pension scheme — from which members were being paid a pension — which, under the deed and rules, was transferred to the 1984 pension scheme. After some time a report was submitted to the members of the scheme which stated that the scheme had commenced on 18 December 1984 on the dissolution of the Sugar Industry Workers Gratuities Society and the transfer of its assets to the scheme. The trustees of the scheme are named in this document — dated 1 March 1988 — as is the actuary. It states that the actuary recommended that the company contribute 12.5 per cent of members pensionable earnings to the scheme. Further, it is stated that that amount has been contributed by the company since that date. It is further stated that membership of the scheme stood at 919 on 31 March 1986 with 86 pensioner members and that members in service should contribute to the scheme at the rate of 3 per cent per annum. The investment funds of the scheme are managed by Allied Irish Investment Bank, the secretary being located at an address at St. Stephen's Green House, Dublin 2, the auditors being Coopers and Lybrand, Fitzwilton House, Dublin 2. Those terms were submitted to the employees.
There was no reference whatsoever at any time to any deficit in any of the documents supplied. In fact, it was shown in the accounts for the period from 18 December, 1984 to 31 March 1986 that company contributions amounted to £1,644,370, members contributions to £409,614, with investment income amounting to £479,057, contributions in respect of transfer from pension reserve amounting to £822,817 and contributions in respect of pension augmentation costs amounting to £664,853 with sundry income of £11,881. Between all that and the expenses, which were the payments of pensions, gratuities, refunds and so forth, the excess income over expenditure was £3,133,790. Investments transferred from the Sugar Industry Workers Gratuities Society was £1,880,177 and cash transferred from SIWGS was £103,000, leaving, £4,324,990 in that fund. On 1 March 1988 the annual contribution of the company was £1,333,000 and the Members contributed £331,000; the number of active members was 821 and the pension payroll per annum was £562,000; the number of pensioners was reduced; the book value of the scheme was £7,637,899 and the market value of the fund at 31 December 1987 was £7,936,830.
In 1989 the book value of the fund was £10,030,831 and the market value was £11,429,000. Again there was a reduction in the numbers on the payroll because of what happened in Thurles. Up to 27 March 1990 the contribution from the company was £351,000 and the members contributed £87,000. At 24 March 1990 the book value of the fund was £11,528,000 and the market value was £13,300,000. There was no reference anywhere to any deficit. I make this point because this was debated annually by the members' representatives of the Irish Transport and General workers' Union, now SIPTU, of which I am a member. I have no doubt that the investments are very wisely made and that the interest accruing is reflected in the increased amount in that fund over the period.
A figure was mentioned in correspondence between the company and SIPTU. It was said that in relation to the shortfall in the present funding, the management position was that the proposed company flotation would make sufficient funds available to cover the £4.57 million required for the pre-1984 service. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that point and the fact that the remaining £5.3 million would be transferred. The Minister gave the figure as £4.7 million and the balance as £3.5 million over a period of five years. The main point on which I want to elicit information is why, over the years, there was no reference to that deficit. I should like to say, loud and clear, that the company that withheld that £10 million was absolutely wrong because the members' contributions were put into the fund and we can see that the money that was there in 1984 was transferred. If the amount now stated to be outstanding had been transferred, one can see what a difference that would have made to the investment and the benefits accruing.
There are many questions to be clarified but I will leave it at that for the present. Having given those figures I hope the Minister will get an up to date actuary's report to give us the exact details of the pension scheme. In his reply, perhaps the Minister would tell us whether the Pension Act, 1990, applies. I do not say that Act has been breached in any way, but it will certainly apply to the pensions scheme for the future.
I am very glad to report that since we last met agreement has been registered between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the company and the Labour Relations Commission, which I had indicated was the intention. The agreement covers all the points dealt with. I have a copy of the agreement from the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission in which he indicated that following a series of conciliation conferences the parties have agreed to recommend the agreement and both parties also agreed to advise the Minister for Agriculture and Food of this agreement. I hope Deputy Sherlock takes note of the fact that both parties have reached agreement, have registered it with the Labour Relations Commission and have undertaken to make me aware of the agreement and the terms of it.
Because Deputy Browne and Deputy Kavanagh have raised this issue it would be helpful if I indicated the terms of the agreement that has been entered into and registered, and then I will deal with some of the other points that follow from this agreement. It was on this basis that the company and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions entered into the agreement: there will be no interruption in continuity of employment. Current rates of pay and conditions of employment will continue to apply. The company will continue to recognise the existing trade unions. Existing procedures for determining rates of pay and conditions of employment will continue to apply. The current redundancy terms being paid by the company are those which emanated from the 1981 conciliation conference. The company acknowledge that this is the current position and they have no plans to change these terms. The restructuring will not give rise to changes in continuity of employment in subsidiary companies or to existing procedures for determining rates of pay and conditions of employment in those companies. Finally, within 30 days of vesting date, moneys will be transferred into the manual pension scheme to cover pre-1984 pensions, as determined by the scheme's actuary. Pre-1984 service in the manual scheme will be funded on a phased basis over a five-year period from 1991 in accordance with the advice of the scheme's actuary. This agreement will be registered with the Labour Court under section 27 of the 1946 Industrial Relations Act and both parties formally agreed to lodge a copy of this agreement with the Labour Relations Commission and to request the commission to consider itself the guardian of the agreement — the parties are the labour relations committee, the Irish Sugar Company and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
I hope that will confirm to the House that the discussions we indicated were taking place, and which I had promoted, have now taken place and that those issues have been concluded satisfactorily from the point of view of both the company and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is quite clear from the company accounts of 1990 — I presume Deputy Sherlock will have had an opportunity to see the January report and accounts of 1990 — that the group operate two separately externally funded pension schemes for their employees. These funds were last assessed by independent actuaries on 31 March 1990 and 31 March 1989.
In the light of what I have said already, I want to give the lie to any suggestion by Deputy Sherlock that there is any deficit or under-funding in these pension schemes. The company have provided in their accounts for the necessary funding for the pre-1984 pension schemes. This provision was made in the company's accounts and there was effectively no deficit. I hope Deputy Sherlock will not try to imply that there is some deficit when one does not exist, and particularly when the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the supreme body representing the interests of the workers, have made no such implication. The company who hold these funds did not pay them to the pension schemes at that time as they regarded them as part of an internally operated scheme. I want to make it clear that there never was a deficit. The company held the necessary funds and made provision for interest on them. As will be evident, the position changed in 1984 when an externally operated scheme was brought in. That is the first point I want to make clear.
Secondly, I undertook the last day to deal again in detail with the points raised in regard to the pension scheme and redundancies. With regard to the pension scheme, I can confirm — the unions are aware of this and have agreed to it — the Sugar Company have now agreed to provide £4.7 million within 30 days of the transfer of shares to the new holding company and to fund the balance of £5.3 million over a five year period from 1991. In addition, the Minister for Finance will confirm this agreement in writing to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
The current redundancy terms being paid by the Sugar Company are those which emanated from the 1981 conciliation conferences. They range from three and a half to five weeks pay per year of reckonable service, depending on pension entitlements. Statutory redundancy payments are, of course, paid in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Act and are an addition to the above mentioned.
As I have already indicated many times during the course of discussions on earlier Stages of this legislation, the details of any pension fund or redundancy scheme are not matters for legislation: they are essentially matters for the unions and the company on which to reach agreement. That agreement has been reached and concluded and registered with the Labour Relations Commission. I hope the information I have conveyed to the House — I do not think there are any other questions Deputies can raise on this issue — indicates that this matter has been resolved satisfactorily. Any implication that it has not been would be a reflection not just on the company but also on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, an implication I would find unacceptable.
I have not got the information I sought from the Minister. Therefore, I can only conclude he has very little information to give me. I asked the Minister why it is necessary to put £10 million into the pension scheme, as has been agreed by the company — an initial payment of £4.7 million and £5.3 million to be paid over a five year period. Why is it necessary to put that money into the pension fund if the company contributed to the fund since 1984 which, according to the auditors and actuaries, they did? Where does the figure of £10 million come from? Why was it not put into the fund by the company at an earlier date? Can the Minister say if that £10 million will be added to the present £13 million book value of the scheme?
Irrespective of what the Irish Congress of Trade Unions may think, the reason I am making this case is because I know what I am talking about. Even if the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have done a U-turn on the issue of the privatisation of the Irish Sugar Company, The Workers' Party will certainly not do so. This is exactly what has happened. The document to which the Minister referred is not worth the paper it is written on. If we are going to repeal the Act which set up the company, how can the company give any guarantees to workers under that document, no matter where it is lodged or by who it is signed? Workers want these guarantees to be written into legislation, they want their rights to be protected.
Why was no reference made to Statutory Instrument 306 of 1980, the instrument which governs the takeover of companies, protects workers' rights and so forth? Even though I concede I have not studied this instrument very well, I do not think drawing up a document which will be handed to the new holding company will adequately protect the rights or contract of employment an individual employee will have with that company. Each employee will have a new contract of employment with the holding company, Greencore. My amendment No. 12 would protect the rights of employees.
I conclude by asking the Minister, who represents the Government, to present to me before the debate concludes tomorrow an actuary's report of the amount of the deficit — if the fund was set up in 1984 and it is necessary to put in £10 million now — there has to be a deficit. The figures given by the auditors or actuaries in earlier times must have just been figures on paper and the actual money must not have been put into the fund. Is that what happened? Will the Minister present an up-to-date actuary's report to us before the legislation is enacted?
I am glad the Minister is now in possession of more facts than he had last Wednesday when we discussed this section and my amendment and that he can give us the terms of the redundancy scheme which will be included in this agreement which he said will be lodged with the Labour Relations Commission.
It has been lodged.
It is evident that there is great urgency about the privatisation of this company. Our Whip had argued for a longer Report Stage tomorrow so that not only would we have an opportunity to check out the facts of the agreement with the unions but so that we could also ascertain whether the workers were fully aware of what has been agreed on their behalf. Having listened to Deputy Sherlock, I think I have more respect for my colleagues in the trade union movement. If he thinks about it, I am sure the Deputy will accept that this Bill will be passed by the House tomorrow because of the number supporting it. These people, too, obviously want to see as many guarantees as possible established in the Labour Court. However, as a member of a previous Government I know that such guarantees sometimes, unfortunately, are not enough. In 1983 when An Post were set up as a semi-State company we were aware of the legislation covering workers' rights in that case. What has happened in the last week gives me the impression that the unilateral action taken by the board of An Post is totally in breach of the 1983 Act, under which An Post were set up. I deplore that. The Minister should accept that even the unions cannot ensure that something is watertight and that on occasion even semi-State companies go back on what has been agreed in legislation. In taking account of our concern for workers' rights the Minister should understand that at the end of the day the legislation put through this House is the only guarantee people can fall back on.
I accept the Minister's assurances that an agreement has been reached and that his amendment goes some way towards guaranteeing workers' rights. Obviously I am just as concerned as Deputy Sherlock to ensure that all these issues are tied up when we are discussing this Bill. Some progress has been made since we discussed the Bill last Wednesday. I was not convinced then with the Minister's replies nor by the document he read out then — I am glad the Minister has laid down what the redundancy terms will be for current members of Siúicre Éireann.
I am satisfied that the pension scheme which the Minister for Finance will confirm — it is very important that he, as well as the Minister for Agriculture and Food, confirms it——
Of course.
——will secure the rights of people already on pension since 1984 as well as those of future employees. As Deputy Sherlock has worked in this industry and has a lot of contacts in that area, his concerns should be taken into account. My concern is that this Bill will have gone through all Stages by Thursday morning and we want to be satisfied that we have done our job as best we can for the people who have given their services to this company and made it a success, people who have worked in the company when it was not as attractive as it is now. The company is now so attractive to the private sector that they are very anxious to get their hands on part of it in the immediate future. As I have said, we accept that agreement has been reached with the unions. I have not spoken to anybody in Congress since last week but I accept the assurances of the Minister that since last Wednesday the concerns we expressed here have been discussed and that agreement has been arrived at. That is a long way from the position we were in just under a week ago. As I have said, Deputy Sherlock is more familiar than many of us with the position in the company. He has expressed very genuine concerns and they should be taken into account.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): All of us here are concerned for the workers of this company as well as for the beet producers. On Second Stage we emphasised the importance of looking after the workers. In using the phrase “fools rush in where angels fear to tread” I do not wish to cast aspersions on anyone. I find it consoling that SIPTU can spend a very tough afternoon drawing up regulations. They were in the process of doing so the last day we discussed this Bill. I know some of these people personally and they are as tough as nails. I would have no concern regarding the workers in the company if this proposal has been accepted by their union negotiators. I know it is very easy to predict doom and gloom. Hanrahan predicted many years ago that we would all be ruined — that was long before privatisation was introduced. I do not know if it does any good to talk about all the things that might happen. Nobody knows what is going to happen. Under EC regulations, perhaps the sugar industry will be closed down worldwide and we will use some other product instead.
I am happy that the proposal in question has been accepted by the Labour Relations Commission. I raised a question the last day as to whether that could be withdrawn, but I am happy that the unions are satisfied because they are dealing with this matter directly. I accept that it is something everybody concerned is apprehensive about but I am happy at this stage that the workers are being looked after.
As Deputy Browne has said, the last day we discussed this matter I indicated to the House that at that point Congress were having discussions and negotiations with the company. I gave the information to the House as I then had it, but I made it quite clear that it would be a matter for Congress and for the company at all times. I have now conveyed to the House that an agreement was reached after we concluded here, and I received a copy of that agreement, on either Thursday or Friday, from the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission. I have read to the House the terms of the agreement which was signed on behalf of the commission, the Irish Sugar Company and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
Secondly, I want to totally repudiate in the strongest possible terms the unwarranted attack made by Deputy Sherlock on behalf of The Workers' Party on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
The Minister should defend his own position and let the Irish Congress of Trade Unions defend themselves. He should answer the question I put to him.
Order, please.
I want an answer.
The Workers' Party purport to take onto themselves in an unrepresentative way the right to determine for the workers of the Sugar Company or any other company what the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are elected——
The Minister should not forget that he denied me the right to attend a meeting in Agriculture House. This is my opportunity——
The Deputy should listen to me because I had to listen to him.
Answer the questions.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Sherlock, you made a contribution and the Minister should be allowed reply without interruption.
The Deputy's branch did not want him. Everyone in Mallow knows that.
I listened to Deputy Sherlock make an unwarranted attack on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and I did not interrupt him at that point. The least I owe to Congress, as partners in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, and indeed to the workers on whose behalf they negotiated is to totally and utterly condemn the attack made by The Workers' Party on Congress. It has been very clear from the beginning of this debate that The Workers' Party would not accept what we are trying to do, through the democratic process in the House, to create a framework for agreement between the unions and the company. The Workers' Party will never accept an agreement made through the democratic process between the company and the unions to an established procedure registered in the Labour Court. They are subject to the democratic will of the people and to the proper procedures established between unions and companies. No Member of the House — apart from The Workers' Party — is prepared to say that, while it may be a democratic process and an agreement between workers, trade unions and companies and registered with the Labour Court, they will not accept it. The Workers' Party acceptance or rejection in the face of that is not a matter of any consequence——
I defy the Minister to put that agreement into the Bill.
Deputy Sherlock is now going on a different tack but I will not be drawn because I gave many indications the last day we debated this matter — and again today — as to why the details of pensions, redundancies and so on between any group of workers and an employer are not an issue to be put into legislation. I appreciate what Deputy Kavanagh said, although I do not think he intended every single detail to be registered. However, I accept that on occasions it is important to give the maximum strongest framework for agreements entered into. I cannot recall the event to which Deputy Kavanagh referred when he was Minister for Labour in 1983 or 1984 but, perhaps as a result of lessons learned from that time, what is now being done is being put in the most solemn possible form, registered as an agreement between them in the Labour Relations Commission and, by agreement between them, formally notified to me as Minister for Agriculture and Food on behalf of the Government, at their request. Deputy Sherlock should look at the agreements and at the accounts——
I have a copy of the agreement, indeed I had it last Wednesday.
In that case, he should have seen the funding arrangements and the provisions made by the company in that regard. If he is not interested enough to read it, that is his problem. An additional guarantee — if such were required — by the Minister for Finance will be forthcoming. It is reprehensible for a party in this House to try to create the impression that they alone are concerned for the rights of the workers and that they can protect them when the very opposite is the case. Since the debate started, The Workers' Party have tried to create worry, anxiety, distrust and doubt, not in the interest of the workers but to serve their own petty political means.
I wish to remind the Minister that last week I sat with 100 ordinary general workers in Mallow Sugar Factory. I am a SIPTU representative in Mallow and it was from those people I took my brief in regard to this matter. The Workers' Party are opposed to selling the Irish Sugar Company when it is now profitable. The party are opposed, in principle, to that and I take my brief from the party and the workers whom I represent.
From where do the party get their instructions?
The Minister has failed to tell this House where the deficit about which the company talked has arisen. He also failed to state that he will bring in an actuary's report to show the true figures; he failed to say whether the £10 million will be added to the £13 million value of the pension scheme. Those are issues of major concern. When talking about the rights of the workers, one must be further concerned that these issues are not written into the legislation. I contend — although I am not legally qualified — that when we repeal the Sugar Manufacturing Act, 1933, which was amended by the Sugar Manufacturing (Amendment) Act, 1973, any agreement made by the company is not worth the paper on which it is written because the company would then become a subsidiary of the holding company just in the same way as the Ballybeg Limeworks or others are subsidiaries of the Sugar Company at present. The workers demand to have these issues written into legislation as requested in amendment No. 12. Instead of trying to lecture me, will the Minister please answer the questions?
I know Mallow well and I know most of the workers in the industry there. I have the greatest admiration for them and we have a worker-director from that factory on the board of the Sugar Company. There is no great anxiety on the part of the workers of Mallow because the assurances given by the Minister in his Second Stage speech and again on Committee Stage up to now are quite acceptable. My colleague in the constituency, Deputy Sherlock, is mischievous in attacking the Congress of Trade Unions; it is proof of where he stands. I am well aware of the balance sheet and the annual report; indeed, Deputy Sherlock is obviously questioning the auditor's report, a statutory signed document. In page 46 of the annual report there is a report by the independent actuaries. If Deputy Sherlock has any further difficulty in this regard, I am sure the report is available in the Library. I was taken aback by Deputy Sherlock's attack because I have no doubt that the party which I and the Minister represent are fully committed to supporting the workers and seeing that their pension rights are upgraded. I visit Mallow on a regular basis and I do not hear the same things as Deputy Sherlock. Perhaps he would like to see Cuban sugar in the country.
As Deputy O'Keeffe said, these matters are all contained in the report as well as the certification of an independent actuary. All the other guarantees which I have given on the basis of the agreement between the unions and the workers are also contained in the report. The matter has been satisfactorily concluded, with one exception, Deputy Sherlock and The Workers' Party have made an unfounded, unwarranted attack on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and I will not regard this business as concluded in the House until The Workers' Party withdraw that unfounded allegation and apologise for it. They should also indicate to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that it was an unwarranted attack. I hope Deputy Sherlock has the grace to do that.
If the Minister does not answer the question he should resign.
The Minister's amendment will obviously be the one in this Bill. Deputy Sherlock's amendment and mine will not be included. I am anxious to know that the document that has been lodged with the Labour Relations Commission is adequate and watertight and, therefore, I want to question the Minister in one respect on this. Subsection (2) of his amendment provides that, "Company includes any subsidiary of the Company". When the Minister is talking about the company, is he talking about the Sugar Company, Greencore or something else? Not everybody who is in Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann will necessarily go into the new Greencore company. Persons could be allocated to subsidiary companies. In that event will this arrangement and agreement apply to all subsidiaries which may emerge from this?
I am glad to confirm to Deputy Kavanagh, who reasonably and understandably asks for confirmation of that point, that that is the case. It would apply to the existing Sugar Company, to subsidiaries and any subsidiaries of Greencore that are established. It is clear from the legislation that these terms relate to the existing Sugar Company and the funding from pension and other points of view has been totally and utterly confirmed so that the subsidiaries are covered by it.
We have heard the Minister laud the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I have here a document I received from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions which lays down the proposals for the amendments to the Sugar Bill, 1990.
What is the date on it?
He will not want to tell us that.
On page three of that document——
Acting Chairman
What is the name of the document for the record?
What is the date for the record?
January 1991.
It is out of date.
That is the document on which the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have deliberated and decided must be the bottom line for the Bill which is being enacted. I want to quote from page 3 what is required or requested by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and I challenge the Minister to say why he has not accepted that if he has so much regard for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It states that each employee on being transferred to the holding company shall hold his or her office or employment on the same terms and under the same conditions as applied to his or her contract of employment immediately prior to the transfer, and while in the service of the holding company the said terms and conditions shall not be less favourable to him or her than those prevailing immediately prior to the transfer save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated between the trade unions or staff associations representing such employee.
I challenge the Minister to tell the House why he has not accepted that, which appears to be very reasonable to put into legislation rather than to rescind this document with its points 1, 2, 3 and 4 and say the agreement is registered. The point I made was that the Irish Sugar Company would be merely a subsidiary of the new holding company and, consequently, any agreement they would have made would be null and void. The basic bottom line for the workers employed in the Irish sugar industry is to have built into that legislation what I submit is that reasonable demand by the ICTU on behalf of the workers. I challenge the Minister to state why he does not accept it as an amendment.
I can accept that challenge not only willingly but enthusiastically but I accept it on the basis that Deputy Sherlock is now indulging in what has been the stock in trade of his party and their origins and associates, namely the big lie, and he challenges me to reply to the big lie, which I have no trouble in doing. First, he said what is on the record here, this agreement between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the company, and I quote: "was not worth the paper it was written on". I think that is an outrageous assertion and I still tell him that if he had any sense of honesty, integrity and fair play he would withdraw it and apologise for it. I quote him again: "Any agreement of this nature would be null and void". That is an outrageous falsehood and should not be allowed to stay on the record here unless The Workers' Party want to have it recognised — and maybe it is time the Irish people knew exactly the kind of thing The Workers' Party want to have it recognised — that the big lie is more appropriate to their approach than the facts and the truth. I want to tell him it is not null and void. It covers a subsidiary company and the Sugar Company and it is a binding agreement.
I want at this stage to make one other comment. The Deputy who, as I have indicated, is fairly practised in the big lie, was reading from a document a little while ago without indicating to us exactly the date of that document and he was purporting to convey to this House the impression that this was an up-to-date document he had received from Congress. He should at least have the honesty to say that document was circulated before this debate took place in this House, that long after that document was circulated a whole range of discussions took place between officials of my Department and the ICTU and representatives of the Beet Growers' Association but I can also say between the Minister for Labour, myself, the Congress and SIPTU and, as a consequence of those discussions, because we recognise that the workers' interests here are of primary, fundamental importance, I introduced in this House amendments which incorporate almost all the points made and the others are recorded in the agreement I have just registered. For what it is worth, I would also remind the Deputy who likes to indulge in the big lie that there are not just four points in this agreement; there are six and each one is equally important. As to points that may not be in the agreement, they are covered in the amendments I have introduced here.
I am not saying this debate is over. Far from it, but at this point on the issue we have been dealing with I would like to express my appreciation to other Deputies in this House who have asked questions and who asked for clarification and when they got it they were honourable enough to accept it. I say to them that I hoped when we started this Bill that was the way we would approach it and perhaps we could improve the guarantees for workers. We have done that. However, it is regrettable there is one exception, one party who have taken a totally different view, but the Irish people will not be surprised at that.
If the umbrella body of the trade union movement, SIPTU, are happy with the agreement which has been drawn up, we as a party are quite happy and will be voting with the Government on this amendment.
That is not surprising. Let me say the document I quoted from had the reference 2038, 28 January 1991 and was addressed to Mr. Michael O'Kennedy, T.D., Minister for Agriculture and Food, Department of Agriculture and Food, Kildare Street, Dublin 2, and I took the paragraph which I thought the most relevant.
I wish to make a further point. The Minister is smiling——
Yes, I want to have a sense of humour as well.
——but I can see plainly also that he is very worried. This is the point I want to make, to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that what I am saying is correct. In 1981 the ITGWU negotiated a redundancy package for the Irish Sugar Company. That applied from the early eighties until the company said in 1986 that no such agreement existed. The matter went to conciliation at a time when the company were pleading inability to pay the terms of that agreement. The conciliation officer recommended that both parties should go back again and iron out the difficulties. The company could not, of course, unilaterally withdraw from the agreement.
This document says that the redundancy terms being paid by the company are those which emanated from the 1981 conciliation conference and that the company acknowledges that this is the current position and that they have no plans to change those terms. The difference is that the union which represents the vast majority of the workforce in the Irish Sugar Company, SIPTU formerly the ITGWU, contended that what they had negotiated was an agreement but the company refuse to acknowledge that there is an agreement. The difference relates to terms as distinct from an agreement. The terms are there but the question is whether there is an agreement. If there is an agreement and the agreement is embodied in new legislation, the workers would be reasonably happy that their rights are protected.
The workers are seeking to have that redundancy agreement retained because over the years they saw what happened to their colleagues in Midleton, East Cork Foods, Erin Foods and in Thurles and Tuam. They do not know what the future holds for them. There will be a new company and there are many question marks. Consequently in this debate on redundancy, what is demanded is recognition of the redundancy agreement, and that is where I differ from the Minister. If the Minister would consider introducing an amendment to cover that point I would accept it.
The Minister's amendment is very weak indeed and has little to do with what is being sought by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The amendment says that "Every person who immediately before the transfer date was an employee of the Company, shall, on the transfer date enjoy the same rights (including rights under a pension or superannuation scheme of the Company) and be subject to the same obligations....". It is a different thing to put in an amendment which says according to the trade union demand that each employee on transfer shall hold his office of employment on the same terms and under the same conditions as apply to those prevailing immediately prior to the transfer. There is a difference, a vast difference, there. If the Minister is sincere about what he wants to do in the interests of the workers, he should accept that amendment.
On Wednesday last when we discussed this, it was said the terms and conditions that were being lodged with the Labour Relations Commission were defective in two areas, the redundancy terms and the pension scheme. The Minister said he has had discussions with congress and with members of SIPTU, and that these points have been clarified. I accept that that has happened and that the new agreement has been lodged.
The Minister also cleared a major point about which I was concerned, that is, that these terms would apply to any subsidiary set up when the new company is set up. If I find in the course of the next few hours or the next few days that that is not the position, I will resubmit the amendments I have tabled here. I am just clarifying that in case the Minister or anybody else views my silence in the last few minutes as being anything other than an agreement with The Workers' Party on this. I have tried to achieve what the representatives of the trade union movement have been trying to achieve, and since last week the Minister has moved as close to my view in these areas as I can get him to move. I accept what the Minister has done and I withdraw my amendment.
I accept what Deputy Kavanagh says, that he is withdrawing amendments on the basis indicated. He does not need my understanding to reserve the right to resubmit any amendment.
All I have done is to record specifically in the House the formal agreement that has been entered into because I felt the House was entitled to know that fact, although it was not a condition of the agreement that it would be made known to the House. The parties to the agreement left that to my discretion. They made it clear that they agreed to advise the Minister for Agriculture and Food of the agreement and I, in my capacity as Minister, have advised the House. I confidently expect that Deputy Kavanagh will not find occasion to come back with his amendments to change an interpretation because I have not given an interpretation. I have quoted a document.
I have been prompted to stick my nose into this debate because I happened to pass a monitor and hear the Minister's indignant tones rising again and challenging the right of Deputy Sherlock and my party to press this amendment. That was extraordinary. The House should not be allowed at any stage to forget the scale and significance of the legislation we are passing here. The precedent it sets, the implications for commercial State companies and their workers generally, and specifically the implications for Sugar Company workers, are great. With all due respects to the Minister, my colleague Deputy Sherlock is closer to or at least as close as the Minister, to Irish Sugar Company workers and he knows a great deal more from his practical experience than the Minister.
Deputy Sherlock's amendment is inspired by the decision taken up by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and it is perfectly legitimate that he should continue to press that amendment without his motives and the motives of my party being called into question. As anyone can confirm, in a post-privatisation situation the workers concerned will or could get scant hearing in such changed circumstances. There have been plenty of examples of that in the UK where a whole new régime applies and the workers conditions are no better than the union that represents them, or that they are capable of reinforcing in that new situation.
Therefore it makes good sense for Deputy Sherlock to seek to have enshrined in this Bill the terms of amendment No. 12 in his name which does no more than that. Quite frankly, I resent enormously the imputation that my party are not arguing a legitimate position here. I am not asking the Minister to agree with it, and I accept that, in parliamentary terms he is perfectly entitled to take up a different point of view. Nor do I mind Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, who had an eminent record of support for the trade union movement locally when an employer, coming into the House to advance his position or challenge his reason for doing so which the Minister appears to be doing. He sent his party Whip whinging to a Whips meeting where he argued that The Workers' Party are filibustering the legislation. We are not filibustering it. It is an important measure and, as the Minister has said, it is the first measure on which we are being asked to make this kind of decision in respect of a major company with the possible exception of the debate on Irish Life.
There is a difference between the amendment that Deputy Sherlock has advanced, No. 12, and the Minister's amendment, No. 27, which has been considerably watered down. This is not my own brief and I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to check this but on the question of the agreement with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions I do know that representations were made to me by my members of my own union — I am quite sure that this is what Deputy Sherlock was talking about — concerning their fears for the future. I would ask the Minister, if he has decided to sell off the family silver, to at least appreciate the real concerns of workers about their future and to ensure that their rights and entitlements are not diminished in any fashion. It is perfectly reasonable for any group of trade unionists to want to do this and that is all that Deputy Sherlock is seeking to do here. We are not seeking to filibuster. It is a legitimate point of view and if the Minister is not accustomed to meeting it in this House he had better get accustomed to it.
Acting Chairman
I should mention that it is the Chair who protects Members of the House. I do not want anyone to be under any illusions about that, and would ask Deputies to keep that in mind.
I do not need Deputy Rabbitte to remind me of my obligations or of the rights of Members of this House when dealing with legislation. Neither do I need Deputy Rabbitte to remind me that one of those fundamental obligations is to ensure that the interests of workers in a changing structure remain paramount. It is for that reason that I along with my colleague, the Minister for Labour, and my officials have for some considerable time, for weeks and months on end, been in constant and regular contact with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Deputy Rabbitte said that I should not be so sensitive with regard to what has been said by Deputy Sherlock because he too has a right to come into the House to say what he wants to say. I agree but when I remind Deputy Rabbitte of what Deputy Sherlock said I wonder will he still want to be associated fully and vigorously with what his colleague in The Workers' Party has said about the agreement entered into by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on behalf of workers in the trade union movement. He said that this agreement is null and void and, to quote him, "is not worth the paper it is written on".
The Sugar Company will be no more and the Minister knows this.
He attacked Congress for agreeing to these terms and conditions. That is what caused me to respond in the way I did, and I will vigorously attack Deputy Sherlock any time he makes that kind of unwarranted attack. He specifically said — other Deputies will remember this — that The Workers' Party would not accept this agreement. Therefore I felt quite free and still do to take him at his word and to attack the outdated ideology of The Workers' Party and the big lie as they were trying to read into the agreement something it did not contain. He did not even give the date of the document to which he referred which predated our discussions here. He said subsequently when exposed that it formed part of a letter sent to me in January.
I quoted the document. The Minister needs a rest. He is losing his cool.
The Deputy just does not know. I have come through tougher things than this——
By the time the Minister has finished he will have sold off the Sugar Company.
——and have exchanged hurling swings with tougher men than Deputy Sherlock. I might not go around making a big show of it but the Deputy should not think that I am getting tired of this, far from it. We now have two members of The Workers' Party here one of whom has acknowledged that this is not his brief but who then proceeded to give us the benefit of his knowledge——
Unlike some of the Minister's backbenchers, I take my duties seriously.
Acting Chairman
Order, please.
It is evident that the word has gone out that Deputy Sherlock has created a major mess by attacking the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. May I ask Deputy Rabbitte, who has come in to help out, if he would advise his colleague sitting beside him that that kind of unwarranted attack on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is in no one's interests, that the agreement they have entered into is not null and void, that it is worth the paper it is written on and that the discussions which are still going on on one or two other matters will prove as all our other discussions have proved to be both very positive and significant.
The Minister did not answer the question on the £10 million.
I want to congratulate the Congress on the arrangements they have made in agreement with the company. I do not want to comment on what may have happened in 1982 as I am only interested in what is happening now but I should say on the question of pensions that it provides a guarantee which perhaps was not there in 1982. Of course Deputy Sherlock does not want to recognise this and traipses back to 1982 to raise questions about what happened then.
They made no reference to it.
Acting Chairman
Order, please.
I forget what name his party had in 1982 or under what banner they were parading but I do know one thing, that the Deputy has attempted to change his colours and his labels quite a bit since then, but some of us have longer memories.
Acting Chairman
We are having repetition and I strongly recommend that we move on to other amendments. I call on Deputy Rabbitte but wish to make the point that there has been repetition during the past quarter of an hour. This is holding up the debate.
I agree with you, a Chathaoirligh, that here has been repetition but this is an important point. We can have a debate on the floor of the House on the respective histories of the two parties any time the Minister chooses.
I would welcome it greatly.
It would be illuminating in more ways than one — indeed not too long before 1982 either. In reply to the question he put to me, his problem is, unlike Deputy Sherlock and myself, he has no knowledge of the trade union movement. To be posing, along with Deputy O'Keeffe, as a friend of the trade union movement is laughable and does not fool me for a moment. What Deputy Sherlock is trying to give effect to here is the original amendment argued by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It is true that the Minister's amendment goes some way towards achieving the objectives of that amendment but the problem is — and this is what Deputy Sherlock has identified — what will happen when the Sugar Company as we know it is no more. The Minister knows very well that words exchanged across the floor of this House between himself and Deputy Sherlock will have no effect once the Bill is enacted. The terms of this legislation will be interpreted and the Minister's intentions will count for nothing. Deputy Sherlock is merely articulating the concerns and apprehensions of workers in a new regime and seeking to copperfasten their rights in a better amendment than the one the Minister is offering. It has been said that Deputy Sherlock is attacking the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Deputy Sherlock is perfectly entitled to give his views about any agreement entered into. The Minister must appreciate the manner in which trade unions do their business. When any member of a trade union is asked to give his opinion on the merits of an agreement, it is not like the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis. Different opinions are articulated and then a decision is made.
Acting Chairman
Please confine yourself to the Bill.
My fear is that in the new situation some of the rights, entitlements and expectations in terms of pension rights which employees have could be diminished. All we are seeking is to get the optimum guarantees before the Bill is enacted. I am interested to hear the Minister say he reckons that the agreement entered into will be good. I do not think that a collective bargaining agreement is compelling in any new ownership. Within a few years I see the Irish Sugar Company sliding out of Irish control and into the dominant control of other parties. In those circumstances, where do the workers stand?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"3.—Each employee on being transferred to the Holding Company shall hold his/her office or employment on the same terms and under the same conditions as applied to his/her contract of employment immediately prior to the transfer and while in the service of the Holding Company the said terms and conditions shall not be less favourable to him/her than those prevailing immediately prior to the transfer save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with the trade unions or staff associations representing such employees.".
Question put: "That the new section be there inserted."
Vótáil.
Amendment No. 12 in the name of Deputy Sherlock. The question is, "That the new section be there inserted" and on that question a division has been challenged. Will the Members who claim a division please rise.
Deputies McCartan, Gilmore, Mac Giolla, Byrne, Rabbitte, and Sherlock rose.
As fewer than ten Members have risen in their places I declare the question lost. The names of the Members who claimed the division will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 3, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) All sums paid to the Minister as mentioned in this section shall be used to reduce the national debt.".
This amendment would have been better placed in section 2 but as it has been placed in section 3 we will have to deal with it here.
This amendment deals with the massaging of figures. If the Exchequer is in receipt of money as a result of the privatisation proceeding, will this money be used as a device to reduce the budget deficit for this year — a massaging of the figures, creative bookkeeping or whatever you like to call it? The fact of the matter is that the money realised by the sale of these shares, if it proceeds, is clearly a capital receipt and should be shown as such. It should be used and should be seen to be used by the Minister to reduce our national debt, which God knows is high enough.
I commend this amendment to the House and I hope it will be supported.
Because I do not support the principle of this Bill I find it very difficult to accept this type of amendment. It was stated clearly in the course of the Budget Statement that "the sale proceeds will be used to reduce borrowing and thus help to ease the burden of the national debt and of debt-servicing costs." This is the issue. The purpose of enacting this legislation is to get in a sum in the region of £50 million to £60 million. We are talking about disposing of the Irish Sugar Company which is now a profitable company and could make a great contribution to our economy. In the past few years the company have made efforts to broaden their base by buying into other companies, such as Odlums and so forth. Perhaps Deputy Garland was voicing his worst fears that the money raised by the sale of the company would not alone be used to reduce the national debt but would be used for day-to-day spending by the Government. I think that would be a disastrous thing to happen.
As I and others have said, selling the Irish Sugar Company for £50 million or £60 million is like selling the family silver, but it is selling the family silver to pay the mortgage instead of using the money to generate wealth and boost our economy. It has been stated that this is a good Government, but under Government policy there are 243,000 people unemployed. To use the proceeds of a sale of this company to private enterprise which in a few short years could be disposed of by private enterprise is a very negative thing. Government policy is the attainment of a debt-GNP ratio of 100 per cent by 1993, which has a lot to do with privatisation. Consequently, to agree to use the proceeds of the sale of the Irish Sugar Company to reduce the national debt is something I would not agree with.
If it happens that this legislation is enacted and the company is privatised, I would like to see any benefit accruing from the sale being put into development to create jobs and relieve the poverty we have as a consequence of 243,000 people being unemployed.
I will not be supporting this amendment. In my budget contribution I suggested that the economics of the budget would be found wanting by the end of the year. The basis on which the figures were arrived at was certainly flawed because the Government were depending on a number of areas for a return. They were trying to ensure that the Exchequer borrowing requirement would be held at the level stated in the budget. This will not be achieved and they will be looking for a lifeline and I am afraid the State companies will be relied on to provide that lifeline for the Government. I certainly do not want to see the State companies being used to prop up the Government's economic propositions as put forward in the budget. I believe that the suggestion of the Deputy in putting forward this amendment perhaps is predicated on the basis that the Government need this type of approach so that they can balance the books by the end of the year. I believe the figures that are being given out and the assessment of the Minister for Finance in his budget speech did not depend on the sale of semi-State bodies to meet the requirements, but if figures go wrong over the year as a result of the Gulf War or the tourism figures not adding up or returns from taxation being less than predicted, it should not be the responsibility of the semi-State companies to provide the necessary back-up. I certainly cannot support Deputy Garland's amendment because it seems to be a way of making the budget balance. I therefore have to tell Deputy Garland that I will be opposing his amendment.
Section 2 (6) of the Bill already provides that all dividends and other moneys received in respect of shares in the holding company and all sums paid in consideration of the sale or disposal of any such shares shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer. The effect of the proceeds from the sale of shares being brought into the Exchequer is that the borrowing for the year, for instance, will be lowered by the amount of the proceeds. This obviously, will have a beneficial impact on the national debt.
I do not think this would be the appropriate place to engage in a general discussion on the different priorities of economic policy and strategy between parties of the left and Government. There is no need for me to go down that road beyond saying that the Government's position in relation to the reduction of the national debt is well known and what we do here will be consistent with that policy.
I am disappointed with the attitude of the House to this amendment. I thought it was a very reasonable one. The reason I put down this amendment was to try to make the point that over the last few years, before I joined the House, we have got into very bad habits with regard to deficit budgeting and this has been going on now for probably 15 to 20 years. It is time to call a halt to it. I do not feel this is an ideological point because I certainly do not want to be associated with the right on economic matters.
This receipt, when it does arrive, should be clearly shown as a capital receipt and not used to shore up the budget figures in any way. However, I suppose I had better withdraw my amendment, as it does not appear to be receiving any support.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 17 is in the name of Austin Deasy. Amendment No. 29 is related. Therefore, with the agreement of the House, amendments Nos. 17 and 29 may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I move amendment No. 17:
In page 3, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4.—The Minister for Agriculture and Food will exercise his role to ensure that under the provisions of EC regulations an agreed and fair inter-professional agreement is concluded between the Company and beet growers.".
This amendment is to help the beet growers. We have discussed the workers in the Sugar Company for quite some time now. This amendment is asking the Minister to exercise his role to ensure that the beet growers and the company can meet to decide on the delivery of the beet and the price fixing of the beet. It is a very important part of the whole sugar company industry because, obviously, if the beet growers are unhappy the sugar industry will not survive as well as it should. It is a reasonable request that there would be a proper discussion arranged.
I am in sympathy with the general idea being proposed in this amendment but Deputy Browne will not be surprised when I say that it would not be appropriate to the legislation. Deputy Browne is aware that each year negotiations take place between the Beet Growers Association and the company and the conditions of contract, which are of considerable detail and importance for both, are negotiated by them each year. The Deputy will also be aware that even when this was totally and utterly a State dependent company, the Minister never intervened in those discussions. That process will continue. I understand that even as we speak here discussions are under way.
I have met the Beet Growers Association more than once in the context of the new arrangements, and I am glad to tell the Deputy that while the agreement is a matter between them and the company, other matters that the Minister and the Government are responsible for have been taken on board and will be reflected in the membership of the board. The special equity provisions that I have already referred to, whereby they can subscribe for equity in the company, will also be in place.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am aware of the past, and if the Minister says that the future is guaranteed under the same circumstances, that is fine.
We have indeed spent a great deal of time on the rights of employees but it has to be accepted that they are employees of a company and, therefore, their needs have to be met directly as a result of how that company operates and the changes that may evolve in it without any reference to what may happen to the quota for the beet growers. I think it is right that we should have spent all that time in ensuring that their rights and concerns were met in this Bill. That is not to take away from the concerns that the beet growers have, which are slightly different. Obviously they have aired their views in this House and I am sure the Minister is well aware of them. He certainly represents more of them than I do in my constituency, although I do represent some. They had two major concerns. They looked for co-management of the Irish sugar quota and a fair payment system for sugar beet.
I will be listening to how the Minister proposes to deal with the bulk of those requirements because they are the basic requirements. If the Minister can assure us on both of those points, then I will be happy. The arguments seem to have satisfied Deputy Browne but I would like to hear the Minister on those two concerns.
At least the workers have statutory instrument 306 of 1980. There does not appear to be any legislation that we are aware of in the matter of take-over, which I referred to, to protect the interests of the beet growers. Of course the basic ingredient of any industry is the raw material. We must have the raw material and that is provided by the beet growers. Would the Minister say whether any discussions have taken place and whether any agreement has been reached or whether any assurance has been given to the BGA which is the body that represents the growers? If not, I would find it rather strange that some effort has not been made to get some guarantees or some assurances on the future of the beet crop.
As I said on Second Stage, growers needs should be taken into consideration by the Sugar Company to a greater extent than they are at present. There has been some very unfair treatment of growers in the past, particularly over the monitoring of tare and other matters. I contend that amendment No. 29 is very reasonable in that beet growers should have a large say in the running of this company since they are partly dependent on it for their livelihood. It would be my hope that the Minister will take their views wholly on board.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): With regard to beet growers I am well aware of the effectiveness of the negotiations of the Beet Growers Association in the past and I am sure they will be no weaker in the future. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the matter of the ghost sugar about which we spoke on Second Stage. I read in the press that that had been accepted by the Sugar Company and agreement reached. Perhaps the Minister might confirm that that very divisive issue has been resolved on behalf of growers. It had been a serious bone of contention that they supplied 10 per cent of the sugar and were later penalised under the seed quota.
As a grower myself who has worked closely with the company, I have noted the great relationship that has evolved between growers and the company. However, price fixing often has been a cause of concern because of delays in negotiations. It would be my hope that any impediments which often have an adverse effect on the sowing of the crop would be removed. In recent years there has been a breakthrough in technology on the extraction of sugar, especially from the crowns, which led to the discussion on ghost sugar referred to by Deputy Browne.
I noted from last week's edition of the Irish Farmers' Journal it was reported that the Sugar Company had accepted the growers claims with regard to ghost sugar. I might add that there is a substantial amount of money involved, which could lead to greater profitability of the company and which, by and large, would be comprised of farmer's money. If that agreement is reached with the company I, for one, will be satisfied because it will be a step in the right direction occasioned by improved technology.
Nonetheless we must examine the structure of the crop and the manner in which it is grown. There are approximately 5,000 growers nationwide averaging in the region of 100 to 1,000 tonnes each. I should like to see protection provided for smaller growers, the backbone of our agricultural economy. The enormous mechanisation and great technological breakthroughs at farmer level could very quickly lead to substantial growing of beet. It is vital that we recognise that the family farm has made a significant contribution to the development of the Irish sugar industry over the past 60 years.
It is my belief that the board of the Sugar Company and the growers have been in favour of this new development, comprising the first element of privatisation in this country. As has already been said, it provides the company with access to the market, and if necessary, to seek capital or extra funding to develop. There have been many opportunities lost by the company and the industry over the years through lack of capital, when they were very dependent on capital injections by successive Ministers for Finance. The ideal marketplace — and this has been endorsed by growers — is the stock market.
I first met the Beet Growers Association a considerable time ago and when contemplating the introduction of this Bill, I thought it appropriate to enter into early consultations with them and I have met them on a few occasions since. I think I can summarise their main concerns. First, they were very anxious to ensure that the new structures would not lead to the national sugar quota passing out of Irish hands. I accepted that concern. I have now made provision to ensure that that quota will be protected in the special arrangements for the golden share to be held in the name of the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The House will recall specifically that that golden share, among other things, provides that the quota cannot be disposed of without the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Food which, I might add, will not be forthcoming. That was the first point on which they sought and received assurance.
The second matter in respect of which they wanted to be consulted was that, to date, they have never had any equity in the Sugar Company and, to that extent, never were able to benefit from any profits the company might make. However, it is true to say that the Sugar Company have returned a profit only in the last two years so that, until then, there was no profit in which to share. But they were anxious, as a major partner — which they are — in the whole operation that they would have access to equity on preferential terms in the new holding company. Having listened to them on that issue I am glad to say that this is being provided in the arrangements under the Bill. This means that for the first time Beet Growers Association members will have what they never had when the company was under State control, that is an equity available to them, some at reduced and preferred shares and some available by way of preference on the open market. Of course that constitutes a major step forward in their interests.
Thirdly, they wanted representation of a grower or an appropriate farmer interest on the new board. They felt that what they had on the old board — though not by any legal right — they should have on the new board. I am glad to be able to inform the House that arrangements will be made to appoint a representative farmer to the board of the new holding company.
One matter on which they did not require assurance from me, because they appreciated that this was a matter for agreement between themselves and the company, was in regard to the details of the agreement on the price of sugar beet each year, in that each year beet growers and the company conduct negotiations before the beet harvest begins. They negotiate that between themselves and the Minister never has been involved. At that point they agree the prices to be paid for beet and on other items connected with the beet campaign. When that has been done there is then an agreed contract drawn up and submitted to growers. I might add that nothing will change in that respect. In addition, I understand that the Beet Growers Association and the Sugar Company exchange letters covering what has been agreed. This process will continue after the restructuring of the company. It is a matter for the two parties concerned. It is not appropriate to have it enshrined in legislation.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that my latest information is that the two parties are in the process of drawing up a formal inter-professional agreement. I understand that substantial progress has been made on a proper understanding being reached between them. When that has been done the only role I will have will be to examine the agreement to ensure that it conforms to European Community regulations, something I am required to do under European Community law, and I have no doubt from the consultations I have had with both parties that it will so conform. For that reason I would ask the House to understand that it is not appropriate that the details of an agreement would be enshrined in legislation. I think Deputy Browne takes that point.
Deputy Browne has already indicated that he is not pressing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 5, after "Company" to insert "other than the special share".
I contend this amendment is appropriate in view of the Minister's earlier amendment adopted here. It merely seeks the insertion into that subsection of the words "other than the special share". This is to give effect also to what was previously agreed.
As Deputy Sherlock's brief contribution indicates, we have discussed this issue. This amendment relates to the special share. I have given the House the only assurances I can give and I have nothing further to add.
Is amendment No. 18 withdrawn?
I thought amendment 18 would be accepted. We are talking about section 4 (2). I submit that it is necessary to amend section 4 (2) in order to give effect to what was previously agreed.
Does the Minister so agree?
No, I do not agree. I have given all the assurances I can. I have also indicated in the course of the amendments I have put on the special share the actual position that will obtain. I cannot accept anything that would in any way constrain the Minister for Agriculture and Food of the day in operating the powers he has under this legislation.
We have already accepted ministerial amendment No. 9 which states:
...the Minister for Agriculture and Food shall not dispose of the special share referred to in subsection (2) of this section.
That is right.
I would say to the Minister, if he would listen, that the section which Deputy Sherlock wishes to amend states:
...of all shares of the Holding Company which are for the time being standing in the name of a nominee for the Minister or the Minister for Agriculture and Food, that is to say:
(a) it shall be lawful—
(i) for the Minister or the Minister for Agriculture and Food to transfer all or any of the said shares....
Obviously that would include the special share. Perhaps the Minister can tell me why he is not amending this section which would allow him to transfer the special share to somebody else?
That is the point I was making. I made very clear in the amendment that has been agreed by the House that the Minister for Agriculture and Food shall not dispose of the special share referred to in subsection (2) of this section. If I imposed an accepted legal binding obligation that I may not dispose of the share then I would not be appointing a nominee on my behalf to dispose of something that I have actually precluded myself from doing. In other respects there will be other matters for the Minister for Agriculture and Food. I would say to both Deputies that in order to ensure that the interests are being protected there will be other matters that the Minister for Agriculture and Food of the day will want to supervise and he may not always be there personally. As the Deputies will appreciate this is a standard procedure. Whatever is being done in that instance could be done by a nominee duly authenticated, but there is no way that a nominee can do what I have prevented myself from doing, that is dispose of a special share.
Thereby hangs a tale. The Minister who has put down amendment No. 9, as stated, is now refusing to accept an amendment on section 4. May I explain briefly why it is absolutely desirable that section 4 (2) would be amended. Subsection (2) states:
The following provisions shall apply and have effect in respect of all shares of the Holding Company which are for the time being standing in the name of a nominee for the Minister or the Minister for Agriculture and Food,...
so that it is lawful to dispose of all the shares in the holding company. That point must be clarified. I am seeking to amend subsection (2) by inserting the words "other than the special share". It is essential to do that if we want to copperfasten the section.
I hope I can do so. Perhaps in some reports of our proceedings the last day there was some confusion. The Minister for Agriculture and Food holds only one share. That share is what we have been referring to here as the special share; sometimes, in other jurisdictions, it is called the golden share. That is the share which the Minister of the day agrees I cannot dispose of and I have made provision for that in the Bill already. To actually use the powers that attach to the special share, for instance, to prevent disposal of the quota, to ensure that certain cumulation of interests together could not do anything to get their hands on the national quota are the matters which are contemplated in the Minister's responsibility in the special share. It would be a mistake to say that no nominee of the Minister can act on his behalf. It is a standard provision of all ministerial authority that the Minister delegates from time to time, for a particular purpose, someone to act on his behalf when he may not be there. All that is being done in this case is to ensure that they would act on behalf of the Minister in the normal course but certainly not to do in any way what the Minister himself is not free to do under law: dispose of the special share.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am beginning to get mesmerised as I have so many copies open here. The Minister is talking about the nominee. When I read Deputy Sherlock's amendment I understand that he wants to insert the words “other than the special share”. The Minister has already guaranteed that he cannot sell the special share. Perhaps it would help if this was clarified as I do not think it has anything to do with the Minister or his nominee. Section 4 (2) states:
The following provisions shall apply and have effect in respect of all shares of the Holding Company...
If it concerns all shares of the company, there is one share it does not concern and would it not be as well to clarify it.
I think it is already clear. To make it absolutely clear between now and Report Stage — as I have already said — we can look at this. Our common purpose is clear. I am prepared to have it checked with the Attorney General's office to ensure that what is already in the Bill will achieve that purpose, if it does not I would have no reservations about accepting an amendment.
Once the Minister has agreed to check this with the Attorney General that is fine. The Minister has already said that the Minister for Agriculture and Food has only one share which is the special share. Subsection (2) states:
(a) it shall be lawful—
(i) for the Minister or the Minister for Agriculture and Food to transfer all or any...
Since he has only one share this subsection would appear to give him the right to transfer that share and I think there is a problem there.
It is because the two Ministers are referred together. The Minister referred to is the Minister for Finance as referred to in the definitions section and the Minister for Agriculture and Food. In terms of disposal the reference there is to the Minister for Finance. It is a legal technicality and I will have it checked with the Attorney General.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The transfer of all shares and the selling of all shares must mean something. If it is not contradicted by something else, which clause would stand?
Is Deputy Sherlock happy to await Report Stage?
I thought when we reached that amendment the Minister would have clearly understood what was meant by it, but for some reason he has not accepted that to amend subsection (2) is vitally important. Otherwise his amendment, which has been agreed to, will have no effect.
Section 4 (2) (a) provides that it shall be lawful:
(i) for the Minister or the Minister for Agriculture and Food to transfer all or any of the said shares to another person selected by the Minister concerned to hold as his nominee the shares so transferred;
(ii) for the Minister to direct a nominee to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of all or any of the shares of the Holding Company for the time being vested in him as such nominee;
This gives rise to considerable confusion. However, if the Minister accepts my amendment which proposes including the words "other than the special share" after the word "Company" in section 4 (2), this would clarify the issue. I do not know why there should be any reference to anyone outside the House when the Minister previously said the special share would not be disposed of. I appeal to the Minister to accept my amendment or to indicate that he will accept it on Report Stage.
It is very unwise and foolish for the Chair to get involved — it is not its function — but perhaps confusion has arisen from the fact that the reference to the Minister, who has more than one share, and the reference to the Minister for Agriculture and Food, who has only one share, is ambiguous in so far as it gives the impression that both Ministers have more than one share.
When we debated the issue of the special share last week, the Minister said that 45 per cent of the shares would be held by the Minister——
I did not.
The Minister said that 55 per cent of the shares in this company would be sold off on the stock market, that 45 per cent would be held by the Minister and that 15 per cent of the 45 per cent share would be taken up by the growers and workers. It was not specified very clearly how this would be divided. This is where the problem lies.
In case there is any confusion, I want to make it abundantly clear that the Minister referred to in the definition section is the Minister for Finance and not the Minister for Agriculture and Food, will hold the equity shareholding of 45 per cent. In fact, the Minister for Finance is the sole and exclusive shareholder in the company at this point, as he is in the case of other commercial companies. The Minister for Agriculture and Food enters into this only because we are making special provision that one share, the special share, with the special rights and obligations attaching to it, which I outlined the last day, shall be held by me. I want to make sure I will not be prevented from discharging my duties through a nominee. That is all I am concerned about. If I can be legally satisfied that what is being proposed here would not prevent me from doing that, I would have an open mind on the issue. As I have said, I am awaiting the Attorney General's advice on the matter.
Is Deputy Sherlock happy to wait for Report Stage?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 4, subsection (2) (a), lines 17 to 20, to delete subparagraph (iii).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 4 subsection (2) (b) (ii), lines 37 to 40, to delete "and shall dispose of by redemption or otherwise such share in accordance with the directions in writing of the Minister for Agriculture and Food".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 22 in the name of Deputy Sherlock, Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are alternatives. I propose, therefore, with the agreement of the House to take amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 together for discussion purposes. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.—(1) The Holding Company shall reserve four positions of the non-executive directorships on the Board of Directors for the purpose of the election of employees to fill the reserved positions. The aforesaid election shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures specified in subsection (2).
(2) The election shall be by secret ballot and shall be conducted in the manner which applied heretofore within Siúicre Éireann c.p.t. and in accordance with the terms of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, as amended, save as herein provided.".
I hope this very reasonable amendment will be accepted by the Minister. The Sugar Company were one of the first companies, if not the first, to which the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act applied. This practice which has been in existence for some time has given workers an interest in the affairs of their companies and has had a great effect on their morale. For far too long workers on the factory floor were highly critical of the way in which decisions were made by management without any reference to workers. Very often they made decisions which were detrimental to the company and, consequently, to the workforce. Worker participation has proved to be a good way of rectifying these problems. Experience has shown that good worker representation is beneficial both to the company and the workers.
As there is no provision in law for worker participation in private enterprises we should include such a provision in this Bill which would have to be complied with. If my proposal is not agreed to, it will be the first step towards whittling away the rights workers have previously enjoyed. Very often the board of a company can be far removed from what is happening on the factory floor.
As I said previously, I believe the new holding company will find worker participation on the board beneficial as it works both ways. In addition, a two tier system of management which should have been introduced years ago would add to worker participation on boards. My amendment proposes that no fewer than four workers be elected to the board.
The amendment in my name is similar to Deputy Sherlock's except in one respect. Whereas he proposes the retention of four worker directors in the new company I am suggesting two. If the Minister says he will accept Deputy Sherlock's amendment — I will be surprised if he does — I will support it, but I am giving him another alternative. Often there are too many directors in companies. Since it has been established that at least half this company will be privatised, half the number of worker directors should represent the shares remaining in public ownership — we do not know how long they will so remain. These shares will be represented by ministerial nominees who will not be appointed under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act because obviously this will no longer be a State enterprise; it will be a private company quoted on the Stock Exchange.
Worker directors have operated very successfully on this board and have seen the company through a very difficult time. As Deputy Sherlock said, this is one of the first companies to which this legislation will apply and they were one of the first State companies to have worker directors on the board. The fears voiced in this House and in the private sector about the inclusion of worker directors on boards were totally unfounded. People of excellent calibre have served on boards. I cannot think of one worker director who has not contributed greatly to the success of public companies, particularly the Sugar Company. Participation of worker directors in this company has helped them through a very difficult time, with closures in Tuam and Thurles. Their advice and intimate knowledge of the company was very important when decisions had to be made.
Although the Minister for Labour is due great credit for what he has done over the years, I criticise him because he has not pursued the area of worker directors in companies. Maybe he was too busy in other directions, but this is one area where I would like to have seen more ministerial direction. The number of worker directors in State companies can be changed by ministerial direction without having to come into this House for approval. I would like to see more encouragement being given to worker directors in the private sector.
The basic question is whether the workers in the Sugar Company should be disenfranchised and excluded from the boardroom as the price of privatisation. The whole trend, especially in the private sector in Europe — and this is happening in the United States — is for far more employee investment not only in the specific production and organisational tasks but in the running of the business.
My amendment simply proposes to retain the rights of workers. This can only enhance the cohesion of the company and prevent any misunderstandings between institutional shareholders and the workforce. The issue of employee involvement in the private sector is currently being discussed by the ICTU and the FIE. I wonder if anybody is seriously suggesting that the statutory election of worker directors in State companies should be the price workers would pay to have a voluntary non-statutory form of employee participation in the private sector. This is precisely what is happening in this instance. Unless this amendment is taken on board we will see a step backwards in this whole area of participation by workers in private industry.
I would ask the Minister to note that the provision of a token shareholding to the employees effectively means they will be excluded from sitting on the board. That is what I understand the Minister has in mind, unless this amendment is accepted. Does the Minister envisage any token representation for employees on the new board? There was no indication of this on Second Stage, and there was no mention of it when we were discussing the principle of the Bill. I do not know whether it entered the Minister's mind or if he is concerned to see workers represented on State and private boards. Obviously he will give us his views in his reply to the amendments. I ask the Minister to note that the provision of a token shareholding to the employees effectively means they will be excluded from sitting on the board. As I have said, unless this amendment is accepted, the Minister will be excluding any participation by workers on the board. That would be a total reverse of the position up to now. It would disenfranchise workers and exclude them from the boardroom, a price they would have to pay for privatisation.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tá feabhas ag teacht ar an scéal. Ní hé amháin go bhfuil rogha idir dhá ghabhar ag an Aire anois; tá rogha idir trí ghabhar. He can make up his mind which of the three amendments he will opt for.
An bhfuil na trí ghabhair sa Teach?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Bhí gach rud ar fheabhas go dtí an t-am seo ar fad. The principle has to be accepted whether this is a private or public company. Am I right in thinking that the Sugar Company will continue with their directorships?
Yes.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): We are talking about the holding company.
That is the only one that matters.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): That is what I was going to say. It is very important that the workers feel they have a say in the holding company and that they would decide overall policy. The Minister has a choice of retaining four directors, two directors or one director. We put down an amendment proposing a representative of the beet growers; they should also be represented in the holding company. In the long run, the holding company could decide to close down the Sugar Company or sell it if that is an option, although I am sure it will not be. In theory, they will be the main bosses and the Minister will keep them in line. It would be a very good gesture on the part of the Minister and would show that he has listened to all the contributions and is concerned for the workers and beet growers, if he were to accept one of the amendments. I presume our amendment is the best, but he should accept at least one.
I would like to reaffirm that the worker directors of Siúicre Éireann will stay in place. The company will remain a wholly State company with all the rights that attach to it. In the course of this debate, some people have said I am in favour of full privatisation in this case, and that this is the end of any State role in the holding company, or the Sugar Company. That is not the case. However, let us assume that we were doing that and going for privatisation as has been argued for from time to time. This is a new dimension, I want a quality representative board which will be able to direct the new holding company and the interests of the workers, growers and investors — in that order — to maximum common advantage. For the first time, we will have a representative board of nine as distinct from the existing board of Siúicre Éireann which will remain at 12. It is essential to have a representative board of high quality because it will have to compete with the most developed companies, nationally and internationally, which is what everyone wants.
The composition of the board will have to give the right signals to the market and the market will have to be interested in the constitution of the board and whether they see it as a constraint or as a positive ingredient in the development policy and profitability of the new holding company. We must take all that into account; I am satisfied that it will be a high quality, representative board and that the interests of the workers will be reflected on the representation of the board. As with the rest of our consultations, I hope it will be acceptable to the trade union movement and, in particular, to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions because this is just one element in the overall agreement which we promoted to common purpose between the unions and the company.
I cannot accede to the amendments in their present form but it is our intention — I understand that discussions are proceeding on that basis — that this will be a representative board. By that I mean it will be in the interests of growers, workers and the company. Beyond that I cannot go. The amendments want the same conditions in a totally new partially privatised structure which is the case in relation to the existing Sugar Company board. The worker directors apply to the Sugar Company board, that was appropriate and remains so, but I cannot accept the amendments.
Within the past hour the Minister lauded the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the workforce in the Irish Sugar Company. However, he refused to accept an amendment which would propose to put representatives of the workforce on the board of the new holding company. We propose four because that is the number already on the board of the company, and they are drawn from different areas — Carlow, Mallow and Thurles. There is also representation from the staff association, a factor which should be borne in mind. The election should be by secret ballot and be conducted in a manner which heretofore applied to Siúicre Éireann and in accordance with the terms of the Worker Participation [State Enterprises] Act. In circumstances where the workers are of such vital importance to the development of any company, why not have worker directors? I am quite sure that there will be growers' representatives on the board, as there have been for a long time. For the Minister to reject the notion of having worker directors at this time — or provision in the legislation to have worker directors — is a clear indication that he wants to enact legislation to hand over to the new holding company as quickly as possible, to tell them that the Government have done their job and that there is now nothing to fear.
Why will the Minister not agree to have worker representation on the board? They are a very valuable company and I have no doubt that, when their shares are floated on the stock market, there will be a demand for them. In such a major changeover, to have workers represented on the board would go some way towards allaying their fears. Why will the Minister not accept that there should be worker participation? There is confidence in the Irish Sugar Company at present and the Minister sees it as worthy of stock market flotation. Consequently, the company will attract investors and, therefore, there should be provision in the legislation to have worker directors; after all, the workers provide the wealth and the workforce in the Irish Sugar Company are mostly very skilled. The Minister made the point that everything would be all right and that the Irish Sugar Company, as they exist at present, would have representation on their board. How can the Minister say such things when the Act setting up the company will be repealed when this legislation is enacted and the Minister will have no say, good, bad or indifferent, over what will happen to the company? The company will then be a subsidiary, I understand that system very well from experience of association with the company. I mentioned other subsidiaries, Dairynuts——
Greenvale.
They are subsidiaries of the Irish Sugar Company but they are subject to the parent body. They are answerable to the Sugar Company so there is no point in the Minister saying that all these things will be provided for by the Sugar Company. The Minister will have no say in what the Irish Sugar Company do; they will be merely a subsidiary of the new holding company which will be set up under this legislation. The company were built up at great sacrifice by the workers over the years and it is right and proper that there should be worker participation. This amendment is asking for that.
I did not expect that the Minister would accept the amendment proposing that there be four directors and that is why I thought that on this first day of the Cheltenham Festival I would give him an each way bet in this area and offer him the second choice of two directors. I never thought he would give the reasons he gave for not having worker directors on the board, and he underlined it time and again by saying he required a board of high quality. The only assumption I can draw from that is that worker directors would not be of high quality and I am very disappointed if that is his attitude to worker directors. On several occasions in my two years in the Department of Labour I met worker directors of the ESB, CIE, NET the Irish Sugar Company and I was impressed by the high calibre of the worker directors who had been appointed by these companies. I have been in the trade union movement for a long time and I think the good sense of workers in putting forward their best people for these companies was underlined by the people I met on those occasions. Then the Minister comes in here and tells us he wants the board of the Greencore company, the holding company, to have only high quality people and this is one of the reasons he cannot have worker directors. That is scandalous. I hope he did not mean that and that he will come back and tell us that was not the inference we had to take from what he said.
I think his second reason was more honest that people who may invest in this company may not be attracted by the fact that worker directors may be appointed, that when prospective investment would read the small print of the prospectus in The Sunday Tribune and Business Post at the weekend and find this revolutionary Government were going to put worker directors on this new privatised board, flotation might be affected adversely. That seems to me the reason the Minister has turned down this opportunity.
We are here starting a process whereby several more public companies may come before us for privatisation. What we achieve here today in this Bill will be the bench-mark for every other privatisation that will come before this House. Some of the changes we tried to achieve but on which we failed and some of the advances we hope we have achieved in the rights of employees are going to be more important in the future because so many other workers of public companies may find themselves in the same position.
I cannot accept that interest in this company will suddenly diminish simply because two worker directors as I have proposed should be chosen to be among the directors of the company, but that is the only inference I can take from what the Minister has said. The question I posed when I introduced my amendment was to remind the Members in the House and some who were not here of the position should the worker directors in the Sugar Company be disfranchised and excluded from the board room as the price of privatisation. The Minister has clearly answered that question by saying that that is the price of privatisation that we are not going to encourage worker directors in a privatised former State company. I have to reject totally the reasons he has given either from the point of view of privatisation and attracting the private sector to invest in this company or from the point of view of those directors in terms of their credibility and their ability to do an important job as directors of a company. I will be endeavouring to press this amendment and hoping to get support for it. Obviously, it will not be from the Minister's side of the House but we might expect the support of the Fine Gael Party on this. Deputy Deasy was in Government when these worker directors were appointed and I hope he will remain true to those people who, particularly in this company when it came under pressure, stood up to that pressure, and made up their own minds as to whether the decisions in regard to closures were good for the company.
First, I would like to pay tribute to the directors of the Irish Sugar Company for an outstanding performance in the last four years. The amendment before us does not relate to what I have just said. We are going to the market for equity and it would be wrong of this House to impose directors or to tie the hands of the new holding company in any way. We would be taking from the shareholders' rights and they are the people who put in the equity. A substantial amount of equity will be involved in the market and I would say we will see a number of institutions taking up blocks of shares in the holding company. I believe those institutions will be making claim for directors themselves and if they are the investors they must get the recognition. The capital will be vital for the success of the company whose credibility in the initial stages will be very important. While there is no legislation in this area before us it is premature of the Opposition to try to pre-empt the situation on this side of the House and try to embarrass us into doing something like this.
I did not think they could be embarrassed.
There have been four worker directors and I am very friendly with one of them. He has played a sterling part in the development of the company and has given of his best. However, we are in a new situation and the Minister informs us that the Irish Sugar Company will continue in their former state and that those four people will hold their share. Deputy Sherlock is probably envious that there was never the foresight to have him elected as a worker director. I am fairly confident that the amendments put down by the Opposition is nullified by the situation and is opportunist at this time.
With all due respect to Deputy Kavanagh, that Coalition he refers to are no more. We have a new Coalition now.
There will be another day.
I do not think we will ever join up with the Deputy's party.
We have no worry on that.
I do not think they need worry either. They have something else to worry about. They will have to find somebody. They will be like a wallflower at a dance, unable to get a partner all night.
I am as sceptical, if not more so than Deputy Kavanagh about the Minister's acceptance of worker directors, but we did not even go for the each way bet. We just looked for a place. We have asked for one from each side one from the employees and one from the growers. There may be a partial solution to the problem in that between them the workers and the growers are going to have a fairly substantial number of shares in the new public company. If they could see eye to eye and get together they could hold one seat on the board on an alternating basis. If the Minister is going to vote down all these amendments — speaking out of the side of my mouth, let me say we will be supporting only our own amendment — and if his proposal is not acceptable, I suggest the workers and the beet growers get together and see they are represented and work in harmony. That might partially resolve the problem.
When we put worker directors on to State companies we tended to put them on the main board. On the Continent it is more usual that the worker directors are on subcommittees of the main board. It would be opportune for the Minister to give some indication whether he is willing to set up subcommittees of the main board; in other words, representatives of the board who would meet periodically with representatives of the workers and the growers.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.