Vol. 511 No. 6
48 Mr. Timmins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the position on her efforts to find a buyer for the IFI plant at Arklow, County Wicklow; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25134/99]
49 Mr. Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the proposals, if any, the Government has for the future of Irish Fertilizer Industries; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25028/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 48 and 49 together.
Following the decision by both shareholders to seek to sell 100 per cent of Irish Fertilizer Industries, two indicative offers were received. However, both the State and the other shareholder, ICI, were of the view that neither offer presented a sufficiently strong basis for proceeding further with the joint sale process. Subsequently, several other parties expressed a possible interest in the purchase of IFI but no further indicative offers were received.
Issues regarding both NET and IFI are under active consideration at present and I intend to raise the matter at Government very shortly. However, it is most likely that the State will retain its shareholding in IFI, at least in the short-term, until a recovery in the current difficult conditions of the fertilizer market would make a sale more likely.
Will the Minister confirm again when the two offers she referred to were made? Does her Department keep the workers and management appraised of the position and, if not, does she agree that perhaps they should be kept appraised of efforts made to sell the State's interest? When dealing with the various interested companies, does she seek an assurance on the continued manufacturing of fertilizer and would she include conditions in the sale?
We have kept the workers informed. I met them and gave an undertaking that I would meet them again if there were any developments. Unfortunately, there have been no developments – certainly none I could recommend to the Government. We will not give this company away.
The State's involvement in IFI and NET since 1987 has cost approximately £400 million. The favourable gas deal expires next January and some of the environmental standards that will have to be met will, unfortunately, pose further difficulties for the company. ICI first wanted to sell its share and the Government had first refusal, but it did not wish to acquire the shareholding. We sought to sell 100 per cent together, but that was not to be.
It would be the intention to maintain employment as far as possible, and certainly to maintain it at all three facilities, although I do not know if that could happen. It is what I sought to do.
On the last occasion this matter was raised did the Tánaiste not advise that other than the two main offerers, interest was expressed by others? Has that come to nought or was it such that she considered there was no point in proceeding with it? If in the interim she is resigned to market forces being unable to provide an adequate prospective purchaser what is her advice on the trading position of these companies?
There will be further difficulties because of the change in the gas pricing arrangement from next January. Given the need to meet the climate abatement policy and so on, there will be environmental implications which will entail further costs for the company. I hope the fertilizer market will improve to the point where it will be more lucrative.
Two formalised bids were made and there were also huge expressions of interest, which came to nothing. They did not go much further than talks with IBI, the company handling the matter for the Government, and requests for a prospectus. Offers were not made. Only two companies made an offer but I could not recommend them to the Government, nor would the House seriously expect me, on behalf of the taxpayers, to accept them. The company will remain under the control of the State and ICI until market conditions change. There are implications for ICI with regard to its undertakings for the company.
With regard to the future of IFI, is the Tánaiste aware of a number of accidents that recently occurred in Marino Point in Cork? Will the State continue to invest in these ageing plants to ensure that they are safe? Are they Y2K compliant and, if not, are contingency plans in place to ensure that a major catastrophe does not occur at the turn of the millennium?
Certainly it would not be my intention to go to Government to seek to invest more money in IFI. I assume the company is Y2K compliant. I believe it is. All State companies have been involved in an active programme, under the auspices of the Minister for Finance, to ensure that all State activities comply.
These are ageing companies.
I accept that. The main area where it has an effect is regarding environmental matters and in the future expenditure would be required on those matters.
Obviously ICI has a major shareholding in this company. It is not solely in State ownership. Given what this endeavour has cost over the past 12 years, nobody could seriously expect the State to do that. To put it into perspective, one must realise what £400 million could achieve even today.
Recently there have been accidents and injuries.
Do I take it that the Minister and her Department will not be assisting the company in seeking to address the environmental problems which may arise?
If the Deputy is asking me if the intention is to put in money to meet the obligations, that would not be the intention.
