asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy the action he intends to take to safeguard public moneys invested in private enterprise companies, in the aftermath of the recent closures of major firms.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - State Investment in Private Enterprise.
1.
Having regard to my particular responsibilities I take it that the term "public moneys invested in private enterprise companies" is intended to relate to the provision of grant assistance by either the Industrial Development Authority or the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited.
All proposals for grant assistance are subject to rigorous examination as to the long-term commercial viability and benefit to the State of the particular project. In addition, grants made by the Industrial Development Authority are normally protected by a requirement that the promoting company invest at least as much in the project by way of equity capital, and the grants are repayable in the event of the recipient company effecting a closure of the grant-assisted under-taking within ten years of the date of the grant agreement. These measures, though they cannot eliminate the possibility of closures, go as far as is possible towards minimising the risk of loss of State funds in such a situation.
2.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy the total amount of public moneys invested in private enterprise through grants, loans, export sales relief and so on, which has been written off over the past five years as a result of the closure of such grant-aided firms.
In so far as it will be possible to provide information of the kind requested, its preparation will take some further time.
I would, accordingly, suggest to the Deputy that he might repeat the question towards the end of January, 1978, when the information to the extent that it is available, will be provided.
3.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if he will take at least a 51 per cent equity holding in all new industrial enterprises set up in this country by multi-national firms, in order to prevent the recurrence of recent closures.
The answer to the question is "No".
The Deputy's question implies that the taking by the State of a majority shareholding in a particular industrial undertaking would eliminate the risk of closure of such an undertaking. I do not accept that implication.
To create badly needed new jobs here in this country we depend to a considerable extent on the establishment here of new projects sponsored by overseas companies. I am satisfied that a requirement along the lines suggested by the Deputy would be a serious deterrent to the attraction of such projects. I might add that other countries who are competing with us for projects of this kind do not impose conditions of the kind suggested.