Vol. 234 No. 1
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if his attention has been drawn to a report that a bank (name supplied) has appointed a person (name supplied) to be receiver and manager of Potez Industries of Ireland Limited; and if, in view of the heavy investment of the State in the Potez group of companies, he will make a statement on the matter.
59.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he can make a statement as to the future prospects of Potez Industries of Ireland Limited, County Galway; and if he will state the position in relation to employment in that plant.
60.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether his Department have any plans for the future use of the Potez factory building in Galway; and whether by the sale of equipment and plant the State can recoup any of the losses involved.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 58, 59 and 60 together.
I am aware that a receiver has been appointed over the affairs of the Galway firm and, in these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to make any statement in the matter at present.
Can the Minister promise the House that he will make a full statement on this matter when the receiver finishes his gruesome business? The Minister will recall that he has evaded answering many questions on this business before now and will he agree to break silence on this matter at the proper stage?
The Deputy may be confusing the two Potez factories here. I have promised the House that I will make a full statement with regard to the factory in Baldonnel and I hope to be able to do that in the very near future. With regard to this particular factory, I must await the outcome of the receivership before I can make a statement.
Will the Minister make a full statement to the House after the receiver has finished?
If that appears to be necessary, I shall certainly do so.
Will the Minister say why he has to wait on the outcome of the receivership? Is this another dodge like sending matters to the Attorney General, which are not dealt with, and the Minister in that way avoids having to reply?
I am making no effort to avoid replying.
Then answer the question.
If the Deputy will allow me, the Deputy should be aware that the answer I have given is in accordance with long-established precedent in this House.
It is not.
I assert it is.
Will the Minister quote any of them? Will the Minister give the references for any of them?
I have myself replied before this on those lines as Minister for Industry and Commerce in connection with other firms.
Never in my hearing.
I have done it in the past year.
Will the Minister say why the fact that a receiver has been appointed is any bar to his answering an ordinary question?
The Deputy will be aware that part of the duties of the receiver will be to obtain the best possible price for the stocks on hand——
Certainly.
——and probably to try to secure as suitable a purchaser as possible for the factory. It should be obvious, I think, that a discussion at this stage could prejudice that purpose.
I am not asking for a discussion. I am asking for a statement. Surely the Minister is aware that the duty of the receiver is to get the best possible result for the company that appointed him? He is not appointed by the Minister. I am asking the Minister to take positive steps himself to make certain the employment content and the resources involved are safeguarded.
The Minister is taking all steps open to him to ensure that.
Why does the Minister not tell us what they are and what he is going to do?
I have told the Deputy that a statement at this stage could very easily, especially having regard to the kind of supplementary questions put by Deputy Sweetman, prejudice the achievement we want to see the receiver attain.
Nonsense. This is like the confidence trick we had before.
I would like to ask the Minister will he agree that this factory produced a good article?
I am not in a position to comment on that.
I have been told that it is a good article, but the fact is the Minister allowed foreign heaters to come in and flood the country. Why did the Minister not take steps to prohibit the import of these Swedish heaters?
That is a separate question.
It is the reason why the place is closing.
I am not aware that that is the position, but the Deputy will be aware that this company, in order to have any chance of being viable, will have to sell on the export market.
