I have given Deputy O'Toole permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Adjournment Debate. - Corroy (Mayo) Glucose Plant.
I wish to express my thanks to the Chair for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I sought permission to raise this because I felt that the nature of the reply today to my question was not satisfactory. To put this matter of the Ceimicí Teoranta Glucose Plant at Corroy in perspective, I refer back to a debate which took place in this House on 9 December last, when the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism introduced the Industrial Alcohol (Amendment) Bill, 1980. The amending legislation provided for an increase in the authorised share capital from £½ million to £10 million. This money was sought to provide for future developments within Ceimicí Teoranta. During the course of that debate, for the first time the Minister gave an indication that a joint venture with an Australian company was in prospect. He went on to say that the newly constituted board of Ceimicí Teoranta had sought to establish a joint venture shortly after the board's appointment. It would seem they had been unsuccessful in doing that and, having been unsuccessful, they sought to refurbish the Corroy plant. The end result was that £1.6 million was committed, and most of it was expended on that plant: new machinery was installed, an effluent disposal and treatment works were provided and there now is a chemical plant very much up to date which could cater for a variety of chemical processes.
During that debate the Minister told the House for the first time that after that decision had been taken the board, with the help of the IDA, had succeeded in entering discussions on a joint venture with the Australian company. The proposal was that a glucose and gluten plant would be established in Ringaskiddy in County Cork, if the discussions were successful and if the proposals were brought to fruition, and, this plant in Cork would sound the death knell of the Corroy glucose plant. This suggestion was not denied by the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, who pointed out that little could be done to reverse the decision if the Ringaskiddy venture was to go ahead because it was felt that the Corroy plant was not commercially viable and for that reason the obvious thing to do was to introduce a more viable industry into the refining chemical plant at Corroy.
When the workers at Corroy discovered that the establishment of a glucose plant in Ringaskiddy would virtually mean the closure of their plant they got up in arms. Deputations from the workers met public representatives and there was a lot of press comment. At that time I sought clarification of the decision taken and I proposed a public inquiry into how the decision had been arrived at, if it had been arrived at. I asked that the board would review the situation in the light of the position at Corroy.
The position at Corroy is that 50 employees there have long service. There are 20 further employees working as part-time dockers at Ballina quay, and the closure of the Corroy plant will mean the virtual shut-down of Ballina quay simply because Ceimicí Teoranta are now the one and only customer using the Ballina quay for the importation of strach for the manufacture of glucose at Corroy. As well, three or four men are employed by CIE solely for the transport of the starch from the pier to the Corroy plant.
Therefore, we are talking roughly of 75 people, many of them with long-time service. We have been told that the potential employment in the new Cork plant, if it ever sees the light of day, will be roughly for 100. The capital cost will be something like £4 million. Already £1.6 million of public money has been spent on the Corroy plant which should have been kept open. Ceimicí Teoranta apparently are turning their backs on that plant when they should be expanding it through the installation of a starch mill. In other words, the capital expenditure of £1.6 million should be topped up to provide the kind of facilities now being proposed for Ringaskiddy.
I do not see any economic sense in leaving this up to date chemical plant empty when the facilities are there and the personnel, many of whom have long experience in the glucose and starch business. Why cannot the board look into the possibility of providing at Corroy the same facilities as those proposed for Cork at a much higher cost? The argument has been put forward that the pier at Ballina at the entry to the sea of the Moy is not adequate to take the kind of discharges of maize and wheat required to keep the Corroy mill going. My answer is that it is high time that that waterway was made adequate and suitable for such business.
We are talking about the loss of more than 70 jobs in an area that has suffered very gravely from job losses in the past 12 months. In County Mayo unemployment rose in 1980 from 4,500 to 5,500, an increase of more than 20 per cent, nearly twice the national average. If we break down that figure we find that half of the job loss increase occurred in the district where there is now a proposal for a further loss of 75 jobs. Today the Minister said that advance factories had been and were being built in the area. I agree with such a policy so that we will be ready when the economy takes its upturn and, hopefully, we will be able to get tenants for the factories.
The Minister and the Minister of State have said in this House and outside it that they are giving serious consideration to this part of the country. In the county there is approximately 250,000 square feet of vacant factory space. Yet in this instance we have a semi-State body who are proposing to put a further 75 people on the dole. The consequence of that is that people will have less money in their pockets and the social life of the area will be deprived of finance.
One cannot but recall the commitment made by this Government, which was that where they had responsibility and influence they would not allow such things to happen. Here is a case where they have direct influence on the outcome of a board decision. Today I asked the Minister to clarify his position in relation to the board decision. Even at this late stage I should like to know if the Minister will advise the board about Government policy in relation to this area. Will he see to it that the board carry out their decisions in accordance with the stated policy of the Government?
The Minister knows as well as I do that if the Corroy plant closes the port of Ballina will also close. The long-term consequences do not look good for the area. We have a port facility, albeit an inadequate facility. However, it can be improved and made suitable for larger vessels. Once that port closes we will find it very difficult to convince potential investors to come to the area. We are throwing away one of our trump cards.
Even at this late stage I ask the Minister to clarify his position on this matter and to let us know what, if any, are the proposals for Corroy. Will the Minister give consideration to the establishment of a starch mill in the area seeing that so much public money has been spent on this plant? At Question Time today the Minister made a statement in relation to production targets at Corroy. He said they were unable to reach their target of 18,000 tons, that output is now down to 13,000 tons. The Minister must know that one of the reasons for their inability to reach a certain level of production was simply due to obsolete plant which broke down practically every day. During the years the workers worked six and seven days each week when the plant was in working order in order to fill orders. The workers are due a great debt of gratitude by Ceimicí Teoranta. There has never been a dispute in the factory, but the thanks they get now is to be made redundant. That is not the kind of treatment that should be given to those people, many of whom have had long service with Ceimicí Teoranta. I appeal to the Minister to consult with the board in the hope that something will be done to save the plant.
The Deputy asked that the decision to close the glucose plant at Corroy be rescinded and in my reply I indicated no such decision had been taken and, consequently, the question of rescinding it did not arise. During Question Time Deputy O'Toole questioned the wisdom of carrying on negotiations with another concern for a joint integrated venture that would produce glucose elsewhere in the country while, at the same time, saying it was not intended to close the Corroy plant.
To answer that question I must say that the expert advice available shows that the future prospects for a starch to glucose plant such as that at Corroy are worsening rapidly and that good prospects exist only for integrated milling to glucose operations. To undertake a milling operation it is necessary to have the expertise to produce and market the other co-products that derive from a milling operation. The Australian company with which negotiations are being carried out have these advantages.
What annoyed me about Deputy O'Toole's attitude is the fact that he is trying to wear two hats. When the Minister introduced the Alcohol (Amendment) Bill in this House the Deputy welcomed it with open arms. He welcomed the joint operation but now he comes here and questions the wisdom of the whole matter——
Because of the closure of Corroy.
The whole matter of Ceimicí Teoranta's operations for the future was put before the Dáil by the Minister and the Seanad where I dealt with the matter. Surely the Deputy must have been aware of what was happening?
Did the Minister of State mention the closure?
The Minister without interruption.
The Deputy welcomed the Bill and he congratulated the Minister for introducing it. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The Deputy was asleep and did not know what was happening. He is also questioning the future of Ballina harbour. Is it since the Deputy moved to that side of the House that he has begun to see the value of the harbour? This two-faced approach by a front bench member of the Fine Gael Party with responsibility for Industry and Commerce is quite deplorable. The way this matter has been approached is not in the interests of Corroy and of the workers there. It is the Government's intention to try to ensure that jobs are protected at all times. They have a particular interest in this factory.
The history of the factory goes back to the early thirties when a Fianna Fáil Government decided to use the raw material, which was readily available in the area, to give employment to the people there. The Fianna Fáil Government have never reneged on their responsibility to the workers of that area. They have always tried to see that the workers are looked after. If it is necessary at a later stage to close the factory, I assure Deputy O'Toole and the workers that their interests will be looked after. As Minister of State for the particular area I cannot recall receiving any representations from Deputy O'Toole, either privately or publicly, until today after he put down this question. I cannot say that about other Deputies from the area. Deputy Sean Calleary has shown his concern for the future of the factory and has been in constant touch with me on the whole matter.
The Minister is playing politics. He should be ashamed of himself.
The Minister without interruption, please.
The Deputy introduced the politics and he will get plenty of them. We will tell the Deputy the reality of the situation.
The Minister has not told me anything.
The Deputy should have manners and sit down. I did not interrupt him during his speech. He should show a little more responsibility in this matter. I am amazed that a man of Deputy O'Toole's stature should play about with this matter as he has been doing during the last few weeks, trying to entice the workers and inflame them in relation to the procedure they should adopt. I want to assure the Deputy and the workers that there is no decision to close down this factory. It is providing a very good service at the moment. The product there is very essential to industrialists. We hope that there will not be any disruption of the work going on there.
Approximately 15,000 people employed throughout the country at the moment depend on the work that is being done in the Corroy factory. We will not have a situation where people are allowed bandy about a question for cheap political reasons and give a wrong impression in relation to this operation. I give frank and open answers during Question Time, I try to facilitate the Deputy. The Minister, Deputy O'Malley, in introducing the amendment to the Alcohol Bill, has been open and frank in relation to the whole question. It was accepted by Deputy O'Toole at the time. Now he is wearing another hat, he has a change of attitude and I do not think that it is doing any good to the operation in Corroy and the workers there.