asked the Minister for Industry and Energy the plans which the Government have for the re-opening of Clondalkin Paper Mills, Dublin; and the steps which have been taken by him to ensure the proper care and maintenance of the plant there.
5.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Clondalkin (Dublin) Paper Mills.
4.
asked the Minister for Industry and Energy if he gave an undertaking to a deputation of trade union and public representatives on Thursday, 15 April 1982 that in the event of the negotiations for the takeover by private interests of the Clondalkin Paper Mills Ltd. proving fruitless the Government will nationalise the company; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
6.
asked the Minister for Industry and Energy the names of the consultants he has appointed to study the implications of the nationalisation of Clondalkin Paper Mills Ltd.; their terms of reference; and if he will undertake to make the findings available to the workers' representatives and place a copy of the report in the Oireachtas Library.
I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together.
When Clondalkin Paper Mills closed in January 1982 the Industrial Development Authority stepped up the approaches they had earlier made to companies in Ireland and overseas that might be interested in acquiring the assets of the mills for the purpose of resuming the manufacture of paper there. In all a total of 115 companies worldwide were contacted by the IDA.
On the basis of my judgment as to how these proposals might develop I indicated to an ICTU deputation on 15 April and again on 6 May that I would use my best endeavours to secure the opening of the mill by 9 June next. I also informed the deputation that because of the possibility that a takeover by private interests might not in the event materialise I had decided to engage Kinnear Consultancy Ltd., 54 Northumberland Road, to advise me on the steps that would have to be taken in the event of nationalisation becoming necessary. Kinnear Consultancy's present and future activities could be said to constitute a form of contingency planning. I would envisage, among other things, that they would have to have detailed discussions with representatives of the workers. They would also have to advise me on such matters as finance, marketing and sustainable manning levels to enable me to put a final proposal before the Government. In view of the nature of the exercise for which the consultants have been retained I do not think it would be appropriate to make available, in the manner indicated in Deputy O'Leary's question, copies of any written reports that they might furnish to me. I expect to have the report within the next week.
The Deputies will appreciate that care and maintenance is the responsibility of the liquidator until he disposes of the assets.
In view of the fact that the Minister gave a commitment to the ICTU delegation that negotiations would commence on 6 May for the re-opening of the plant on 9 June and that they have not yet taken place, would the Minister indicate when they will take place?
In case there is any misunderstanding, I did not give a commitment that negotiations with the workers would commence on 6 May. What I said was I would bring them up to date on the meeting of 6 May, which I have done. I told them I would discuss the preliminary plans I had for nationalisation with them and indicated the situation about the Kinnear Consultancy. Subsequent to that meeting I made arrangements for Kinnears to meet the workers. I understand they met the ICTU and the workers and that they are being kept up to date. Negotiations are proceeding along those lines.
As is apparent from the Minister's reply, he needs a consultant's report at this stage. What facts does the Minister now wish to discover which he was not aware of when the commitment was given that nationalisation would be entered into within three months if a private interest was not found to take over the mill? Can he indicate what extra information he needs since the commitment was given very clearly? Will he indicate what he intends doing about the problem of skilled workers going to other areas if work is not resumed soon at this plant? Would the Minister indicate what is the form of inquiry that now appears necessary when there appeared to be little doubt in the case some short time ago?
I am sure Deputy O'Leary and the House will appreciate that if nationalisation does have to come about, one must bear in mind that if one purchases a mill today or tomorrow morning, first of all a management structure is needed to run that mill, market research is needed into existing customers and into new outlets and financial proposals put together for the construction of the company. Those are the aspects I am talking about at a sustainable level.
That material, the necessary structural changes, are there already in the Boston consultant's report.
Part of what I am looking for is in it. Somebody must go in there and look at the sustainable manning levels and enter into discussions with the workforce, which is what has commenced.
There is no doubt about the Minister's undertaking to nationalise a private industry such as——
My remit is quite clear to everybody. It was made quite clear during all the meetings I had that my remit from the Government is this: (1) to seek a proposal to take it over by private enterprise; (2) to seek a State-private sector participation and, those two options failing, (3) that nationalisation would then be taken on board.
Can the Minister confirm that on Thursday, 15 April last he gave a specific, unambiguous and categoric assurance to the deputation he met that in the event of a private sector take-over proving fruitless, the mill would be nationalised?
I told that deputation — just as I am repeating here today — that my remit was as I have already indicated at (1) (2) and (3) — that I had already made contingency plans in the event of the third option becoming a reality, but the other two have to be finalised first.
In view of the fact that the ICTU delegation came away with a clear indication from the Minister that the mill would be reopened on 9 June and that negotiations for its reopening would commence on 6 May — and bearing in mind that at present it is quite clear that no private buyer has been found for the mill — can the Minister indicate whether or not the mill will be reopened on 9 June and also when negotiations will commence?
I attended the meeting on 6 May. We discussed what advances had been made in the various situations in relation to the people who were interested in it. At that time one buyer was expected to indicate his decision within a matter of a week. We then discussed what contingency plans I had and we proceeded on that basis. That was accepted in good faith both by ICTU and the workers, that I had plans in any eventuality and that the people employed by me would have meetings and discussions with them, and matters have proceeded from that point.
Can the Minister say whether there are any private interests still involved?
Yes.
Actively involved?
Yes.
When does the Minister expect to know?
We have to put a final date on it. I should say, for the benefit of everybody concerned, I had numerous meetings with the liquidator — one company appeared to be dragging their heels although there was sufficient evidence available that they had telephoned and cancelled a meeting. The liquidator put a final date on it for last Wednesday or Friday. That company did not come up so we take that as having gone dead at this stage and we are pursuing one more at present. I expect to be in a position to know about that very shortly.
Would the Minister agree that he is rather inaccurate in describing his reponsibility here as a remit, that he should more correctly be talking about a firm commitment which was given by him on behalf of the Government? I am questioning the Minister about his description of his responsibility here as a remit. Would the Minister not agree that what was given here was a firm commitment and undertaking on behalf of the Government that those mills would reopen. Would the Minister specify exactly what steps he has taken to lead up to the nationalisation of these mills to ensure their reopening on 10 June because we know that will require considerable preparation? Will the Minister indicate what steps have been taken that will lead in three weeks time only to the reopening of these mills on 10 June, including the maintenance of the plant which we understand is deteriorating rapidly all the time?
I want to inform Deputy Taylor that there is no difference between what I have said is my remit and the commitment given. The commitment given on the three objectives was quite clear in the order in which I have already enunciated them here. There is no difference between what I have said and the commitment given. Secondly, I have already indicated in a lengthy reply what steps I have taken and the contingency plans I have put into action if the private sector does not take it over. I shall repeat it again for Deputy Taylor if he wishes, but it is there.
Accepting that there is a commitment on behalf of the Government to nationalise the paper mills at Clondalkin will the Minister confirm that if a private firm take over either partially or wholly for a period and fail to make a success of it the commitment of the Government to nationalise the mills still stands in those circumstances?
That is a hypothetical question that does not even arise.
Just to be clear, am I to understand that if there is no private take-over of the mills, or if there is no private and State joint take-over of the mills, the Government will nationalise them by 10 June? If that date is not correct would the Minister state specifically on what date the mills will be nationalised if the other two options do not materialise?
I have already indicated in my reply and in the information I have given both to the ICTU and the workers that I was using my very best endeavours to have the mill reopened by 9 June. A commitment was given and I have outlined twice to the House what that commitment was. That commitment will be honoured, taken in the order I have already enunciated.
Would the Minister confirm that for four months——
A final supplementary, please, Deputy.
——from mid-January to mid-May, no private sector conclusive and positive offer was made for this mill and that the Minister's assurances relating to nationalisation and State participation are nothing more than the gigantic bluff in which his party engaged in the course of the last general election?
I am sure the Deputy realises full well that the first three months about which he is talking were not my responsibility. I will tell the Deputy — if he wants to verify this he can — and he can verify it with trade union officials who carried out their own investigation as to a particular buyer who was interested who had gone as far as to agree terms of contract with the liquidator. That is a fact that has been substantiated by the leaders of trade unions and not a massive bluff as the Deputy would like to call it.
A total gimmick.
Sir, there are three questions here.
I know that, Deputy, but I have already allowed 12 supplementaries.