asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will say if he has any information regarding the statement published to-day on behalf of Messrs. Gallaher to the effect that in consequence of unfair discrimination against that firm in the present Budget proposals it will be compelled to close down forthwith the recently established factory at East Wall, Dublin, which at present provides employment for 300 persons, and whether he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Question. - A Dublin Tobacco Factory.
I have seen the statement published on behalf of Messrs. Gallaher (Dublin), Ltd., referred to in the Deputy's question.
The financial position of the State necessitated an increase in the tobacco duty in the recent year. When considering the possible consequences of such increase the Government had to take into account the position of Saorstát firms engaged in the tobacco industry, many of which were working under considerable difficulties. As the Deputy is no doubt aware, a number of Saorstát firms in this industry have gone out of business during the past nine years. The Government, consequently, decided to give a concession in respect of this duty to Saorstát owned firms established prior to 1922.
In arriving at this decision the Government had advertence to the fact that the firms operating factories both in the Saorstát and in the United Kingdom were, and have been for some time past, paying duty at a higher rate in the United Kingdom than it is now proposed to levy here.
The announcement of the decision of Messrs. Gallaher to close their Dublin factory is deeply regretted by the Government because of the unemployment which may result amongst the workers engaged by the firm. The Government has under consideration the extent to which it is possible to make special provision for the employees concerned who are citizens of An Saorstát by securing for them a preference in employment in other industries which are being established as a result of the Government's industrial policy.
I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the motion for the adjournment this afternoon.
Will the Minister say if the financial advantage to the State, mentioned by him, will counterbalance the loss entailed by the 300 employees who have, only within the past couple of years, found suitable employment? Will one counterbalance the other?
I made no reference to any question of financial advantage to the State.
The Minister did. Will he kindly read the reply again?
I do not think it is necessary.
Looking at this matter from the business point of view, has the Minister considered that this is an Irish firm and has always been an Irish firm? Is he aware of the fact that political events which occurred in this country obliged the firm to put up this separate factory? As regards all firms competing in the Saorstát, are they not entitled to equal rights? It is a commercial transaction.
Arising out of the Minister's answer, may I assume that this firm did not approach him or consult him before arriving at their determination to close down, or am I to assume that they did consult him and ask his assistance in devising ways and means to avoid closing down?
Certain consultations have taken place with representatives of the firm.
In that event, may the House assume that the Minister was fully apprised of the reasons why this firm was about to close down and that it was going to close down, before the fact was made public?
Have the tobacco factories receiving the concession given a guarantee that they will absorb the 300 unemployed who will be thrown out as a result of the closing down of this factory?
That is a different question.
In view of the fact that no diminution is expected in the consumption of tobacco products in the State it is reasonable to assume that some number of the employees will be absorbed by other firms, but no guarantees were asked for.
I would like to press my inquiry for this reason: If the impression goes out that Messrs. Gallaher sought to coerce the Government by a threat, a very strong public feeling will be marked against them. On the other hand, if they came to the Minister and sought his advice and his sympathetic consideration of their case, a very different situation arises. Did they so approach the Minister before taking the action they now announce they will be compelled to take?
I was not approached by any representatives of the firm, but other members of the Executive Council had some discussions with representatives of the firm.
Will the Minister give us some details of what those representations were, and were the Government aware some days ago that Messrs. Gallaher would be forced to close down their splendid factory at the East Wall?
I am not aware that Messrs. Gallaher are forced to close down.
Will the other Minister concerned give the House some details of the discussions that took place?
The original question was put to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
It is not fair that the other Ministers should remain silent while 300 people are threatened with the loss of their employment.
If it is intended to have a discussion on this matter on the motion for the adjournment, I suggest all these questions could well be postponed.