Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Feb 1969

Vol. 238 No. 4

Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers. - Loans and Grants to Potez Company.

89.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce (a) the total amount paid by the State in loans and grants to Potez Limited and to Potez Aerospace Limited, (b) if there are any new developments regarding these firms and (c) what is the present position.

Particulars of the grants and loans made to the Potez companies were set out in my reply to Question No. 85 of the 24th October, 1968.

The present position about Potez Aerospace Ltd. is that the liquidator continues to explore possibilities with enquirers to find a suitable alternative project for the factory, but, so far, it is not possible to say what the outcome will be.

Likewise, the affairs of Potez Industries of Ireland are in the hands of a receiver and, accordingly, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any negotiations being carried on by the receiver.

Could the Minister say, or does he or the receiver envisage that the building should be used? Would it be bought by the new firm? Or must it be leased or handed over or what actually will happen?

I take it the Deputy is referring to the Baldonnel premises?

I visualise that the premises will be sold and that there will be another manufacturing undertaking which will operate from those premises.

But the only way in which the Minister considers it should be done is that the firm which proposes to use them should buy the premises?

That is what I envisage but I do not rule out completely the possibility of leasing. It does raise other problems. They may not be insuperable if this were the best way to do it.

The Minister has received representations that the ordinary trade creditors would be met in full and having regard to the desirability that future enterprises which are set up with the assistance of the State would receive the full cooperation of commercial enterprises in this country, could the Minister ensure that these representations would be sympathetically dealt with, even if it calls for a special State subvention to ensure that the ordinary trade creditors, who are not in a position to suffer the colossal losses being placed on them in this case, will have their total debts paid in full?

I am speaking from recollection now and I do not wish, if it turns out to be inaccurate, to be accused of misleading the House. My recollection is that it had been agreed by the liquidator that these debts should be paid in full. I do not know if this is news to the Deputy?

I did not think that it went that far.

I may be incorrect but that is my impression.

Would the Minister be able to say if the value of the property is greater than the amount of debats claimed against it?

I believe that the sum which would be realized would enable the ordinary trade creditors to be paid in full.

Is that why the Minister says that he would like to see it sold rather than leased?

No. There are other complications in it.

Question No. 90 postponed.

Top
Share