asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy the proposals for the expansion of employment in the timber processing sector.
15.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Timber Industry.
14.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy his view of the prospects for the processing of native timber.
I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together.
The Industrial Development Authority with the Forest and Wildlife Service of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, are completing a comprehensive study of the timber processing industry with a view to identifying how the maximum return can be obtained from our timber resources.
The study of the sawmilling sector of the industry has already been completed and the findings have been discussed with that sector's representative body, the Home Grown Timber Merchants' Association. As a result the authority have agreed a development policy and grant criteria to develop this sector of the industry. Projects involving an investment in fixed assets of £1.83 million have been approved grant assistance by the IDA to date and these are expected to generate an additional 181 jobs.
The remainder of the study dealing with pulpwood products is still under consideration by the IDA. This sector of the timber processing industry has been seriously depressed throughout Europe for some years past. The short term prospects for a recovery in the market are not bright but the IDA see prospects in the medium to long-term of an upturn, the employment content of which is difficult to quantify at present.
In view of the troubles which the timber processing industry has gone through in recent years, how can the Minister make such a confident prediction, as outlined in the White Paper, of an increase of 900 jobs in this sector by 1985?
That is a separate question.
That is very likely but 1985 is six years away. As I said in the reply, the short term prospects for a recovery in the market—this is the pulpwood side of the market not the other one which has already started to grow—are not bright but the IDA see prospects of an upturn in the medium to long term. I think by 1985 that that will have come about. A share of those additional jobs, which are referred to in the White Paper, would arise in the sawmilling sector.
That would account for a third according to the White Paper.
At least. One of the aspects of the pulpwood product side of it is that it is much more capital intensive than the other side. While one hopes that there can be very worthwhile utilisation of our increasing timber resources in those years it will not necessarily reflect itself in large increases in employment.
In the proposals for the industry is anything specific in mind for the utilisation of the product in the north-west, either on the short or long term?
All parts of the country where timber is available are naturally taken into account.
That is not what I asked the Minister. I asked if there was any specific proposal for the utilisation of timber products either in the short term or the long term in the north-west?
I told the Deputy that all parts of the country where timber is available are taken into account and no one part of it is given any priority over any other.
I am not asking about priority. I am specifically asking the Minister whether, in reply to the question which he did not cover, in any specific way, if there are any specific proposals, either long or short term, for the utilisation of the ever increasing forest products in the north-west?
The only area in which specific decisions have been made relates to the sawmilling side. I have not details of where each of these new projects is. Those which have been approved to date have a job potential of 181 and it is envisaged that on the sawmilling side there is a potential to create 400 jobs in all. I do not have a list of where all those are, some of which could be quite small, but I have no doubt that they are situated pro rata throughout the country and that presumably some at least of them must be in the north-west.
Would it be possible for the Minister, by written reply or otherwise, specifically to indicate what is or is not projected for the north-west?
If the Deputy puts down a question for written reply he will get a quicker answer. There is nothing in either of those two questions relating specifically to the north-west and that is why I do not have any specific information on it.
16.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy the reason for the delay in making public the contents of the Little Report on the future of the Irish timber industry.
17.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if it is intended to publish the Little Report on the timber processing industry; his intentions in respect of the future of Munster Chipboard Limited, Waterford; if he will give assurances on the long term future security of employment in that firm; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 16 and 17 together.
I assume the Deputies are referring to a study of the chipboard industry undertaken for the Industrial Development Authority by A.D. Little and Co. This report contains confidential information and the IDA do not propose to publish it. The company mentioned in Question No. 17 is, of course, in private ownership and responsibility for it rests primarily on the board of the company. The situation of the chipboard industry is at present under consideration and it is not possible to make a statement about it until the position is clarified except to say that the objective is to put the two chipboard factories on a basis of long term viability.
I regret the decision not to publish the Little Report. I understand that concern has been expressed within the industry at its non-publication. Is the Minister aware that we received assurances from his colleague, the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, in relation to the long term employment of people in Munster Chipboard? Can I now have an assurance from the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy that this increase in employment will continue in the Munster Chipboard factory in Waterford? Will the Minister give me a further assurance that this company are being treated equitably in relation to their future viability? Will the Minister give me an assurance that in respect of information being made available——
If the Deputy could put his supplementaries, which are very long, separately it would be easier to answer them because I have almost forgotten the first one.
There may be urgent considerations involved and I refuse to be put off by the Minister. Will he give me an assurance that the information being made available by State agencies is being made available to the present board of the company and any other interested parties?
I am not aware that an assurance that employment would be increased in the Munster Chipboard factories was given at any time. An assurance was given about the long-term future of the factory. I am reasonably confident that the negotiations which are at present in train with a view to assuring the long-term future of the factory will bear fruit. I believe that can be assured. The chipboard industry has to be seen as a unit. There are two factories involved, one in Waterford and one in Clare, and the future of the industry must be seen in the context of the two of them and not of one. So far as an assurance about equitable treatment for the company is concerned, I can certainly give that assurance to the Deputy. The company concerned have been treated more than equitably. The Deputy wanted some other assurance but I do not recall what it was.
I have a number of supplementaries which I will make as short as possible. Is it true that the Little Report has been available since last May and has not yet been published?
It will not be published. The IDA commissioned it and I have asked them what they propose to do with it. They tell me it contains confidential information about companies and they do not propose to publish it. That is the normal practice in those circumstances.
I was told recently by the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry that it was not yet available. My information is that it has been available since last May. Is the Minister aware that a section of that report has been available to the chipboard industry since last September but we have not been able to obtain this section of the report?
The IDA made edited parts of the report available to some of the interests involved.
I have that report on the chipboard industry in front of me. Is the Minister aware that that report, which has been available to the chipboard industry, recommended a common management for the two factories the Minister has referred to, the one at Scariff and Munster Chipboard, and that the directors of the Scariff factory have resisted this suggestion and by doing that they have put the future of the Munster Chipboard factory in Waterford in jeopardy? Is the Minister aware of that?
Considerable discussions and negotiations have gone on over recent months. I note that Deputy Deasy takes a diametrically different approach to this matter to Deputy Collins. It might be helpful if I were in a position to clear up that disparity of views but, in the circumstances, and as the negotiations concerned are at an advanced and delicate stage it would be better for me not to comment one way or the other.
Will the Minister give an assurance that Munster Chipboard Ltd. will continue to give employment and will continue on a viable basis, certainly, in the short and medium term—in the long term we will all be dead? Will he give me a further assurance that undue political influence will not be used to favour the Scariff factory as opposed to the Munster Chipboard factory?
I have given the Deputy all the assurances that I am in a position to give or am willing to give. There is no question of political or any other influence favouring one factory as against another. My objective is to see that both factories are put on a viable, long-term footing. I would look forward and hope for co-operation from all concerned in trying to arrive at that desirable objective.
There is no divergence of opinion between Deputy Collins and myself. I put to the Minister that the recommendations in the Little Report are not being adhered to because of resistance on the part of people in Scariff and in resisting they are jeopardising the future of Munster Chipboard.
The facts are that resistance, if I may use that word, is much less in the case of the Scariff company than it is in respect of the other company. I have answered a very large number of supplementary questions and as this is a very delicate matter——
(Interruptions.)
Will the Minister see that the recommendations in the Little Report are adhered to?
I will endeavour to see that all the relevant recommendations in the Little Report—not just the edited parts that were made available in confidence to the industry—will be adhered to in so far as they are judged by the various agencies concerned to be useful and conducive to the long term future of the industry.