asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will give the total financial grant so far allocated to Potez, Galway and Potez, Baldonnel; and how much of this sum was devoted to employee training.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Potez Undertakings.
42.
Mr. O'Leary
The grant allocated to Potez Galway by An Foras Tionscal was £550,000 of which £530,000 has been paid. The grant allocated by An Foras to Potez Baldonnel was £463,000 of which £405,000 has been paid. These grants were towards the cost of factory buildings, machinery and equipment. I understand that no grants were made by An Foras Tionscal towards the cost of employee training.
In view of the very unsatisfactory position in regard to the Potez factories at Galway and Baldonnel, is it proposed to pay the outstanding portion of the grant in each case?
The question of the eligibility of this or any other firm to obtain a grant eventually becomes a matter of contract. The firm is entitled to obtain whatever it is entitled to obtain under the contract. That is what the firm will obtain, no more and no less.
Mr. O'Leary
When a contract is made originally, is there any machinery for review if the progress is not satisfactory? Surely the Minister is not saying that a contract should stand for all time whether the firm makes progress or not? Is he saying that despite the lack of progress, the contract price to the Irish taxpayer remains unchanged?
The Deputy is aware that no part of the grant is paid until the full investment by the private side has been made. Therefore, the question of relating the grant to the progress made by the industry is not as simple as it may appear. The estimated progress is calculated on a certain investment. To attain that investment, the private side must put in all its own money, and then the State puts in its money. As will be clear from the reply, there are certain stages for the State investment. The question of whether any more money will be paid depends on whether the firm is entitled legally to be paid it.
Does the Minister believe that the stated investment of Potez in the Baldonnel factory, £3 million, is a real figure? That was the figure given last week by himself. Is the Minister satisfied this is a real figure?
This is the information at my disposal and I have no reason to disbelieve it.
For the Minister's information, everybody else in the country disbelieves it.
Are we to understand that, despite the fact that the present situation is most unsatisfactory and that there is public disquiet regarding the very large State investment in this company, it is the intention of the Minister to pay the balance of this money to this firm under the contract without trying to find some way of ensuring that the company lives up to its commitments?
That seems to be a different question altogether.
It is also a different answer. That is not the answer I gave. If the Deputy choses to misinterpret what I said in that way, I cannot prevent him; but if he wishes to be accurate, he will not interpret it in this way. That is not what I said.
Is the Minister aware that the Potez factory at Baldonnel is for sale and has been advertised in continental newspapers?
Question No. 43.
43.
Mr. O'Leary
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether the most recent lay-off of employees in Potez Aerospace, Baldonnel is of a temporary nature.
44.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce when the promised report on Potez Aerospace Ltd., County Dublin, is expected to be available.
45.
Mr. O'Leary
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether every effort will be made to recoup the State's investment in Potez Aerospace, Baldonnel, County Dublin, in any negotiations that may take place for its takeover by, or amalgamation with, another company.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 43, 44 and 45 together.
I am not yet in a position to say when I shall be able to make the promised statement to the House, but I do not expect to be able to do so during the current session. In reply to questions on 29th September, I indicated that certain things are taking place and that it would be inappropriate for me to make a full statement until these things were completed.
It may be taken that, in the event of any negotiations involving a takeover of the company or its amalgamation with another company, every care will be taken to safeguard the State's interest in the project. The position of the employees, including those recently laid off, will, of course, also be an important consideration in any such negotiations.
I cannot say whether the recent lay-off of employees is of a temporary nature. I am informed that the actual number of employees laid-off last week was nine and that five of these have already been placed in alternative employment.
Mr. O'Leary
At the recent meeting in Dublin of the Potez family, did they confide to the Minister the possibility that this company might be taken over by another company? Has the Minister any exact information from the other side? I do not want any confidences but can we be assured that the Department has not been "taken up the creek" with the taxpayers' money? Can he assure us that this matter was discussed with the Potez family recently in Dublin?
I am not at the moment in a position to add anything further to what I said recently but the Deputy can rest assured, as I have already said in respect to these companies, that the State's investment in this project will be safeguarded, in so far as it is possible to safeguard it, in any negotiations which take place.
Mr. O'Leary
Was it envisaged in the original contract that there might be a takeover bid? There now appear to be rumours to the effect that Potez will be getting out of this business and taken over by another firm. Was there any provision in the original contract about this?
The Deputy will be aware that there have been cases in which grants were paid to firms which, for one reason or another, failed and an effort made to get other industries started on the premises. In all such circumstances, it was insisted that the benefit of the grant which had been paid by the State would be made available to the purchaser, to the new industry, and such a course would be followed if such a situation were to arise in this project.
The trouble is, who will take it over?
The present position of public disquiet is far worse and far more prejudicial to the industry or to any new industry coming into the building than if the Minister made any statement. It would be far better if the Minister made a full statement on the exact position.
The Deputy is making a statement, rather than asking a supplementary question.
What I say is directly related to Question No. 44 standing in my name.
I have already informed the House on a number of occasions that, in my view, it would not be to the advantage of the industry or the State for me to make a more detailed statement at the moment.
At this stage, the Minister is wrong.
A full statement will be made when it is possible to do so.
Will the Minister tell the House what collateral Potez put up with this?