Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 May 1970

Vol. 247 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition of Potez Factory.

51.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether any payment was made to the Potez family or the Potez companies arising out of the acquisition of Potez Aerospace Ltd. by Roadstone Ltd.; if so, the amount involved; and whether any such payment has been offered by or sought from the Potez families or companies as a partial offset against the loss to the State from financial assistance given to Potez Aerospace Ltd.

The Potez interests in their capacity as ordinary creditors will receive a dividend out of the proceeds of the liquidation of Potez Aerospace Ltd., at the same rate as the other principal creditors, related to the amount of their claims against the assets of the company admitted by the liquidator.

As I stated in reply to a question on 19th May, the dividend is expected to be in excess of 10s in the £. No other payment has been made to the Potez Companies in connection with the take-over of Potez Aerospace Ltd.

No payment was offered by or sought from the Potez family or Potez Companies to offset the losses sustained by the State because of the failure of this enterprise. There are no legal grounds on which the State could seek such a payment. The losses sustained by the Potez Companies which had invested in the enterprises are, in fact, substantially greater than those incurred by the State.

Is it not correct that Potez got more than £1 million by way of State subvention? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article reported in Business and Finance this month which states that the Potez family will get £346,232 from the sale to Roadstone of the plant? If this calculation is correct, is it not strange that a family can come here from France, dip into the pockets of the Irish taxpayer and salvage the sum of £346,232?

My attention was not drawn to the article in question. As I conveyed in my reply, I do not think that we should specifically say that Potez dipped into the pocket of the State in this regard. The losses sustained by the Potez Companies which had invested in the enterprise were substantially greater than those incurred by the State. There are no legal grounds on which the State could seek such a payment in view of the fact that the losses sustained by the investors, from the point of view of Potez, were far greater than the losses unfortunately sustained by the State.

Am I to assume from the Minister's reply that his attention has not been drawn to the current article in Business and Finance?

I should like to be honest with the House and say that I have a desk full of material to which my attention has been drawn but I have not any knowledge of having read it.

When I was at school and a person was deemed to tell a lie he was asked to stick out his tongue.

I would prefer to refrain from sticking out my tongue.

Are the figures set down in the article that Potez will salvage a sum of almost £350,000 from this sale contested?

The Deputy is asking a different question.

I do not like to see these people getting away with our money and that is the reason why I have taken up the Chair's time and the time of the House.

They have left some of their money here. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to contest the figures because I have no recollection of having read the article.

Was there a sudden change as a result of which the Deputy became a Minister?

The point is that there is a lot of business in the Department with which I have to become acquainted.

I can present the Minister with my copy of the article if he wishes.

The Chair is calling Question No. 52.

52.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether any State assistance has been given to Roadstone Ltd. in connection with its acquisition of Potez Aerospace Ltd.; and, if so, if he will give details.

It has not been the practice to give details of grants approved until they have been published in the annual reports of An Foras Tionscal. In the special circumstances of this case, however, I have decided to depart from practice and to give the information asked for by the Deputy in so far as it is available to me. Roadstone Ltd. are to receive financial assistance towards the cost to them of acquiring the fixed assets of Potez Aerospace Ltd., the assistance taking the form of an abatement by the IDA of their claim on the liquidator. The amount of the abatement, which is being effected by way of dividend waiver, is £118,430, representing 25 per cent of the price to be paid by Roadstone Ltd. for the fixed assets at Baldonnel after deduction of the estimated realisable value of Roadstone's existing premises and disposable machinery and equipment. Roadstone will, in this way, receive the equivalent of a 25 per cent re-equipment grant.

Am I to presume from the Minister's reply that as well as the grant paid to Potez which went down the drain a further grant towards the cost of the building is to be paid to a second company?

Is the Deputy now suggesting it is wrong to assist an Irish company?

I am suggesting it is wrong to pay two separate sums of money to two different companies towards the cost of the same building.

The Deputy appears to be making an argument in regard to a question.

Roadstone, the people making all the money, are to get a further grant.

The Deputy is making a statement.

My objective in so doing is to protect the pockets of the taxpayer——

From irresponsible Ministers.

——from irresponsibility on the part of the Government and the IDA.

The idea is to help Irish industry.

Does the Minister think it is necessary to make a subsidy out of taxpayers' money?

That is a separate question.

Top
Share