I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,164,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1981, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses.
Supplementary Estimates, 1981. - Vote 14: Miscellaneous Expenses.
This Supplementary Estimate of £1.164 million is to meet trading losses and other costs arising from the operation of the McCartin Group of companies in receivership, in the period from 19 March 1980 to 3 February 1981. These funds were advanced to the receiver by the Agricultural Credit Corporation consequent on a Government decision that the receiver should be provided with the funds necessary to enable him to meet the outgoings involved in keeping the group's businesses in operation until his examination of those business had been concluded.
Subsequently, following consideration of the receiver's report the Government decided to ask Fóir Teoranta to examine the position of the group. On 3 February 1981 the Government announced that, having considered the results of Fóir Teoranta's examination, they had decided that the receivership should proceed in the normal way.
The amount which I am now asking the Dáil to approve is comprised as follows: Group losses for the period 19 March 1980 to 3 February 1981, including receiver's management charge of £276,500, £982,766; receiver's remuneration for report on financial position and viability of the group, £40,000; interest to the ACC on the foregoing amounts for period 4 February 1981 to 30 November 1981 £141,344.
I am amused at times when I read and hear in the House criticisms of us when we were in Government. No Government in the history of the State has done as much as we, in the face of serious economic recession, to try to keep economic activity on a par with that of our EEC partners. We succeeded far better than any of our EEC colleagues in keeping unemployment rising more slowly and economic activity at as high a level as it ever had been in Ireland, due to our decisions as the Government and our anxiety that jobs should be protected. We were faced with an extremely difficult situation because of the position in the west and because of the position in Leitrim. As the Minister of State pointed out, certain decisions were taken to ensure that every reasonable effort was made to protect jobs in that part of our country where we believed such jobs were needed.
The Minister of State has spelled out the position in regard to the provision of finance. We believed this was a position which could not continue indefinitely. We needed to save jobs, and we wanted to take every reasonable measure to do that in the interests of the area and in the interests of the workers. There were other contributory factors which made it important for us to examine the position in a detached manner with the sole purpose of taking decisions best suited to the needs of the area and the people in it.
We are all aware that in that group there were certain political interests. Whether that political interest be the Government's or the Opposition's, as it was in this case, obviously the Government had to be seen to be taking decisions which were cold, reasonable, sensitive and detached in the interests of the community. We did that. We had to be seen to be taking those decisions independently, and we did that.
I want the Minister of State to tell me what has happened since the change of Government. What steps have been taken, if any? What involvement has there been by the Minister of State or the Minister for Finance? The House is entitled to know what the position is. We also want to know whether meetings have taken place between the ACC and the company or the ACC and the directors. Is there co-operation from the directors? Is there co-operation from all sides? What are the prospects? Has the Minister a view on what the final outcome will be? What is the present cost in money terms? Is it £14,000 a week and, if so, since when? The Minister of State must let us have the answers to those questions.
Can he indicate to us when negotiations, discussions, consultations and efforts to sell portions of the company as going concerns will be concluded, what the number of jobs will be, and how many will be saved? How soon will final decisions be taken? What steps are being taken to reach a conclusion? Those are the basic questions I want to put to the Minister. This was a matter of some concern to us, and understandably so. Because of the concern of the Fianna Fáil Government for the workers of the west, a part of rural Ireland we all believe in supporting, the Minister is obliged to spell out for us clearly what the present position is.
I appreciate that this is a very involved subject covering a very complicated financial situation and covering eight companies and many employees. I appreciate what Deputy Fitzgerald said about the difficulties of the area in which these industries were located. I am not sure whether there is a tradition in this House that one should declare an interest. If it must be put on the record that I have some interest in this matter, my interest is that I was a director of all the companies which are the subject of this discussion. I am not directly involved now because of the fact that the companies are in receivership. I am not engaged in either buying or selling these companies.
To go back to the beginning of the problems raised by Deputy Fitzgerald, it is true to say that the area in question needed more than just pious gestures of goodwill and concern about emigration. We are talking about a county in which the population dropped from something like 60,000 to 30,000 over a period of years during which the country was governed by various Governments, but mainly by Fianna Fáil Governments, who presided over the liquidation of the youth and strength and vitality of a county and a community. I refer not only to County Leitrim but a wider area including west Cavan and parts of Donegal and Sligo and north Longford. Leitrim is the only county which is entirely within that severely handicapped area, the Drumlin Belt. Therefore, as a county our figures show up worse than others while other communities and areas and parts of other counties suffered similar disadvantages.
In those circumstances the directors, with the agricultural advisers, with the goodwill and assistance of a helpful community, with the participation of a work-force second to none, built up these companies to a level where they provided something like 320 jobs at one stage. That was the peak. Over a period of years good wages were paid and steady employment was provided by the group and the associated activities for 300 people.
To the best of my knowledge the total amount of industrial development grant paid was around £150,000. No public services were provided. Roads were built privately. No advance factories were provided. Water and sewerage facilities were provided privately. No housing schemes were looked for. In co-operation with each other the workers built their own houses.
It was a difficult situation over the years. It was a difficult position on which to build something of this sort. Of course it was not planned. Of course there was no blueprint. Of course there was no agreement from financial institutions before the jobs started. Financial institutions would have said it was not possible to do it, and that would be that. Naturally we were not working to a master plan developed over the years. By "we" I mean the community, the workers, the directors and everyone involved. The IDA were of assistance in so far as their limited resources permitted them to be. There was a very inadequate agricultural advisory service which did the best with the resources available to them. If 300 people throughout the country had made a similar effort and had the same level of success, we would have no unemployment in Ireland today. At one stroke 300 similar efforts would have solved our whole unemployment problem.
I mentioned the IDA grants. We are not blaming any one. Perhaps the directors are to blame for the fact that more grants did not come. Normally industrialists make careful plans and do not drive a nail, or lay a brick, until they are positive that they will get State assistance. The directors at Newtowngore had resolved to solve the unemployment problem in their own area with or without outside assistance. If all the loans made available by the Agricultural Credit Corporation were added to the grant assistance, if one sought to solve the unemployment problem throughout the country by that sort of financing, and if those loans were not repayable but a free handout, the jobs would still have been provided at half the cost of creating industrial jobs in the west.
Therefore we find a minimum of State investment, reasonable success with the provision of jobs, and an industry which it cannot be denied was, for the directors and the workers, like taking a currach out into the Atlantic in all sorts of weather. It is not easy. Nobody will pretend that the directors or the workers involved were perfect managers or perfect employees but I contend that in difficult circumstances those people did the best they could to solve the unemployment problem and create something which, in my opinion, could have survived the storm with a little more timely and careful consideration. I shall not go over that ground. I do not do so unless I believe there is something useful to be gained therefrom.
I will say, however, that there was one industry only in the group which had serious problems — that was T. and J. Farms — a company which was totally borrowed, an agricultural enterprise. Most of us will agree that in the agricultural industry at the best of times one cannot afford to pay more than perhaps 10 per cent on money borrowed. At the time that company went into receivership 20.8 per cent was the rate of interest being charged. It was not possible to meet that then or at any other time. We have a subsequent report from the Irish Agricultural Institute. I am sorry, Sir, if I am creating a problem, please tell me.
I merely wondered if the Deputy was aware of the fact that the debate must conclude at 2.30 p.m. Ordinarily the Deputy would be perfectly in order in a debate of this kind when he would be entitled to speak for one hour.
How much time does the Minister need?
The total amount of time remaining is eight minutes.
I should like two minutes to reply.
We are going to oppose the Estimate if this continues.
I am sorry. I did not think I was creating a problem. I thought I was speaking in a constructive way on the subject, in much the same vein as the Deputy who spoke before me.
On a point of order, for the information of the House, and in case any wrong impression is conveyed by what Deputy McCartin has just said, we raised certain points on which we are entitled to a reply from the Minister in the time allowed. Deputy McCartin has had already longer than we have had on this Vote. I and my colleagues look forward to a reply on some points raised from the Minister of State.
In answer to Deputy G. Fitzgerald, the Chair would like to explain his problem. The Chair's problem is that the Whips have agreed to a debate to take place within one hour. On the other hand, the Standing Order which covers that same debate is one which applies to a debate where time is unlimited, and the Chair must do that. There have been occasions in the past when the Minister did not have an opportunity to reply.
We lost a fair amount of time in childish argument on small points a few minutes ago.
The final point I wanted to make is that it is widely recognised at this stage that interest charges of the magnitude about which I have just spoken could not be met. I should like to refer the Minister to a report from the Agricultural Institute on the company concerned which might enlighten him to some extent. I have not discussed this with him or any other Minister. I want merely to refer him to that report. Because of the difficulty of time I will give the Minister an opportunity to reply fully to the questions raised.
I might make a few points because I was involved to a large extent with the Government at the time. Deputy G. Fitzgerald has explained quite clearly what was our position then and I do not intend to go over that ground.
I want to ask a few questions of the Minister and give him an opportunity to reply. Indeed, it is a pity we have not more time because this is a very important subject. The figures concerned are those mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate, which was up to 1 February last only and the interest up to November only. As I understand it, the cost of the continuing receivership works put at approximately £14,000 a week, since 3 February last. We have not been providing any money since then other than for interest to the Agricultural Credit Corporation. That would leave an additional cost of £602,000 which has not been taken into account in this Supplementary Estimate. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.
I think the primary concern of everybody in this, from all sides of the House, at all times was the protection of all possible jobs in the area. Questions must be asked, and replies must be given, about the lack of co-operation by the people concerned on the ground with the receivership and the Agricultural Credit Corporation since then. Nobody anticipated that this problem would continue practically two years after the first involvement of the receiver. The time has come for the conclusion of this matter, bearing in mind that the priority in the involvement of the Government at that time was the protection of jobs in rural areas. We must have some elaboration on the Minister's ideas as to when this involvement of the receivership will conclude, to what extent jobs have been, or will be, saved and the amounts of money that will be lost in the overall group of companies.
I might make just a few comments. The direct involvement of the Government in relation to the receivership, as we know, ended on 3 February 1981. Therefore all issues in relation to the companies in receivership are matters at this stage solely for the parties directly concerned. It is correct that the cost of keeping the receivership in operation is £14,000 per week. But that is not a matter which directly involves the Government as such. It is an ACC cost and that cost will be borne by the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Government involvement did cease on 3 February last and the conduct of the receivership since then is a matter exclusively for the ACC since the Government decided that the receivership should proceed in the normal way.
In my opinion — and I am expressing a personal opinion here — the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture, indeed the Taoiseach himself, displayed enormous generosity and understanding and made every human effort to assist in this situation. In other circumstances they would have been entirely justified in taking an entirely different course of action. It would be entirely remiss of me today if I did not say that I found incredulous — that is the only word I can use — the contribution by my colleague, Deputy McCartin, who decided of his own volition to make a contribution to this debate. I believe he has a great deal — and I underline a great deal — to answer for, together with his co-directors, in relation to the outcome of this situation. For the record I felt that must be stated. It is the minimum that should be stated here today in relation to £1.164 million of taxpayers' money, not to mention the other substantial sums involved in this whole affair. In charity, and perhaps in a lot of other contexts, I would be wise to leave it at that at this stage.
Vote put and agreed to.