asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, in view of the anxiety caused by the one week's notice of termination of employment given to employees of the Greenmount and Boyne Linen Mills at Harold's Cross, Dublin, and the reasons published as the causes of the close down of the mills, he will have immediate discussions with the management and render assistance to the firm with a view to avoiding a closure; and if he will make a statement in the matter.
Private Notice Question - Closing of Dublin Linen Mills.
My Department has already had discussions with the management of the Greenmount and Boyne Linen Company about the proposed closure of their factory at Harold's Cross. It is clear from the information available to me that the closure arises from circumstances which are particular to this company and I regret that there are no steps which I can take which would result in a reversal of the management's decision.
I can assure the Deputy that there is nothing in the proposals at present under discussion in the trade negotiations which would justify a reduction in our cotton production and I would like to emphasise that our plans for the industry envisage its further expansion.
Having regard to the fact that to a considerable extent the difficulties of the firm are due to the Government's trade policy and the withholding of financial assistance for which the firm have been looking for years, will the Government undertake to compensate employees and others affected by the close down? Having regard to the fact that 40 years ago Deputy Cosgrave's Government got the mills reopened, will the Government not now take a leaf out of Deputy Cosgrave's book and——
The answer to the allegation on the Government's trade policy is to be found in a statement issued by the manager of the mills:
It has proved difficult to obtain sufficient orders to run the factory economically.
That statement was published in the Irish Independent. The company were not able to meet competition.
Two years ago there was a unilateral reduction of tariffs.
The Deputy may be aware that the Industrial Credit Company gave assistance to the extent of £150,000 in redeemable shares. In regard to an application for an adaptation grant which has been made an excuse for the failure of this company to remain competitive, the grant was refused because the machinery which the firm introduced was secondhand and it could not be considered that secondhand machinery should qualify for such a grant from taxpayers' money. The application was considered by An Foras Tionscal, a body independent of my Department. I should like to say here that I was appalled at the treatment of their workers by this company.
What happened to the £150,000?
There are other branches of this company. It is the Harold's Cross branch which has closed down. It is hoped that the Drogheda part will become more efficient.
Would the Minister carry out a public inquiry into the position held by certain officials, who might be in a position to lend to the company, in competing companies?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I put it to the Minister that is why this firm is being closed down.
The dirt is coming out.
Other cotton mills have been able to put in new machinery and they are now in a healthy position. It is as a result of last year's trading conditions that this firm closed down so precipitately.
Is the Minister not aware in February of this year at the annual general meeting of the company, the chairman informed the Minister—this was published in the newspapers—that unless financial assistance was forthcoming, employment in the firm would be in jeopardy? I would ask the Minister, in the light of what is happening at the moment, to have another look at that report and to review the position.
Does the Deputy really believe the State should take the taxpayers' money and use it to make one inefficient company into an efficient one?
It is not inefficient.
Would the Minister say if there was any other reason, besides the proposal to put in secondhand machinery, why these people were refused an adaptation grant? Was there any other reason for refusing such a grant?
The machinery was already in but it was also considered by An Foras Tionscal who deal with this part of the taxpayers' money that this firm would not be capable of making itself self-sufficient.
Is the Minister aware that An Foras Tionscal never went to the factory before they made that decision?
I have a full report on the file of the conditions in the factory. Last July in the House I had to deny allegations by the firm that they were not given the reasons for the refusal of the grant. I had the full evidence which specifically showed that they had been given the reasons. I have no reason to believe this firm want to give the full facts to the public.
Will any compensation be paid to the workers? Will the company houses which are occupied by workers be taken from them? Will these people be evicted from the houses?
Put them in Griffith Barracks.
How much extra money was the company looking for?
I have not got that information.