asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism the reasons for not mounting a rescue package to save a company (details supplied) in Waterford.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Waterford Company.
4.
I do not accept the inference in the question that efforts were not made to rescue the company referred to. On the contrary, strenuous efforts were made, as the Deputy should be aware, over a lengthy period by the IDA and other interests concerned to have the company taken over as a going concern.
Negotiations to this end with a major Irish company had, by May 1979, almost been completed. This arrangement would have involved a considerable amount of State assistance in various forms. Unfortunately, a number of developments caused the would-be purchasers to review their position and led to their withdrawing from the project. Further efforts by the IDA and the receiver who had been appointed in February 1979 to have the company taken over as a going concern also proved unsuccessful. In those circumstances the receiver disposed of the machinery and equipment.
I understand that interests which recently purchased the factory premises are at present negotiating with the IDA in respect of the establishment of a project in the vacated premises.
I am aware that certain radical elements did not help the continuance of the factory, but is the Minister aware that timber is being exported at £1 a ton and that timber is rotting in the State forests due to the lack of processing facilities? Surely this factory should be reopened while the equipment and trained personnel are still available. Can the Minister give us any hope that the factory will be reopened?
These matters were gone into and it was decided that it would not be viable to go ahead with the factory at that time. We know that the skilled workforce is available and I am sure the IDA are keeping this in mind and that if they find it possible to locate something there they will do their best to have it located.
If the Government can underwrite the losses being incurred by the Scarriff chipboard factory in County Clare they can do like wise with the Munster Chipboard factory in County Waterford. Why can that not be done? Where is our afforestation policy leading to if we are not prepared to process the timber?
The Deputy is aware that this was fully investigated and that an independent survey suggested that one of our factories could be kept going. It had been decided to provide assistance for the Scarriff factory.
I question the Minister on his statement. I saw the report on the state of the chipboard industry——
A question, Deputy, please.
—— and it said that we could have two viable industries, one in Waterford and one in Scarriff. Will the Minister give a guarantee that a positive effort will be made to reopen the chipboard factory in Waterford?
The Deputy will have to agree that everything possible was done to ensure that work will be continued in that factory.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Minister try again?
I appreciate that here we are using a raw material that can be processed at home and I am sure that the IDA will not lose sight of that fact in trying to ensure that something will be done.
It needs a political push such as the one we gave in County Clare.
Is the Minister aware that our policy of reafforestation is being let down the drain because of the inadequacy of the policy of the Minister and his Government to adapt the industry to use this raw material? Has the Minister any views on the report of the timber industry?
I am sorry, Deputy, this question relates only to one company.
Is the Minister prepared to bring his views to this House in the form of recommendations for implementation from that report on this industry?
I am sorry, Deputy, this is a specific question about a company in Waterford.
The Deputy should put down a question along the lines suggested.
Will the Minister examine that again?
The report I referred to deals largely with the very subject matter of the question.
That may be, but the question here relates to a rescue package for a specific company in Waterford.
It also happens that this report deals with this subject matter. I am now asking the Minister what proposals he has to rescue this company.
The Deputy should put down a question to that effect.
The Minister is prepared to answer the question.
I am just suggesting that the Deputy should put down another question and we will deal with it then.
There is a major unemployment problem in Waterford.
And all around the country.
Is it true that the IDA had an alternative source to take up the factory in Scarriff until the Government stepped in and did a deal with another company? Will the Minister now arrange for the source that the IDA had to inspect the position in Waterford to see if they can be put in there, seeing that their faces were slapped over Scarriff?
I have already given an undertaking that the IDA will keep the matter under review.
Question No. 5, please.
Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will follow the matter up?
He will not, of course.
Will the Minister give a guarantee?
I have called Question No. 5.