Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Jun 1982

Vol. 337 No. 1

Private Member' Business: Kilkenny Factory: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to instruct the IDA to participate in a joint venture with interested parties including existing management and workers, on a majority equity basis if necessary, to reopen the Fieldcrest factory, Kilkenny, now in receivership and secure the maximum level of employment consistent with long-term viability.

On a motion such as this there is a danger that some Members might get the impression that I am talking about just another closure like the many recent factory closures throughout the country. Therefore I will show complete justification for putting down a motion like this to give the House an opportunity to hear exactly what is involved and to take a decision on it.

The Fieldcrest factory is not a white elephant or a lame duck. It is the most modern and best equipped factory of its kind in the world, the biggest ever built in Ireland. It stands on a 30-acre site, 12 acres of which are under buildings. The perimeter wall is one mile in length and the factory has the potential to employ 1,200 people. It uses one million gallons of water daily.

I have given these figures to illustrate the magnitude of the undertaking and therefore the importance of the motion, and in doing that I stress again what Fieldcrest is not: it is not an industry which often has been described as a lame duck or a white elephant. Fieldcrest is neither.

The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism at the time, Deputy O'Malley, at the official opening in September 1980, less than two years ago, is reported in the Kilkenny People as having said that Fieldcrest was the biggest factory ever built in Ireland, 5,000 square feet larger than the Limerick factory which the Minister said should remain nameless. Of course he was talking about Ferenka. The circumstances of the two factories are not in any way similar. I will quote from the same paper a comment made on that occasion by Mr. William Battle, President of that company at that time:

My technicians in the United States tell me that this mill is consistently producing the highest quality yarn we have ever seen and that already Terry Towels of quite excellent quality are being produced.

That comment was made by a man of vast experience in that kind of work. Fieldcrest is the most modern towel plant in Europe. The product was of the highest quality, with potential annual sales of £30 million. Though the sales figures did not reach the hoped for level, they showed a consistent increase in the sales graph in the two-and-a-half years up to the time the receiver was called in. The factory employed a highly skilled workforce and AnCO had spent approximately £1 million training them. It had an extremely highly skilled management team, and productivity was equal to the best plant in Europe, as acknowledged by plant owners throughout Europe who came to examine Fieldcrest in recent months.

The factory had an excellent industrial relations record from the beginning. The most striking feature was the number of young people employed, the average age of the 640 employees being 24 years. The factory indirectly supported a number of service industries not only in Kilkenny but in the neighbouring counties. It is not possible to give an accurate figure of the number of people in the service industries in the region who will lose their jobs as a result of this closure but it has been estimated at 300 or 400. The factory contributed enormously to the economy of the region. All this indicates that I am fully justified in seeking the time of the House to get a decision on this motion. The effect of the closure is the human tragedy that 640 people have lost their employment.

In carrying out some research in preparation for this debate I came across a statement made by Deputy Gene Fitzgerald in 1977 when in Opposition. At that time the European Investment Bank had refused a loan for this venture and Deputy Fitzgerald, Fianna Fáil spokesman on Labour, said the European Investment Bank had completely overlooked the social implications of their decision. Of course, the same can be said today of the Government. In allowing Fieldcrest to close the Government have overlooked the social implications of their decision. We are discussing the loss of 640 jobs at a time when the number on the live register is rapidly approaching 150,000, at a time when even prior to the closure County Kilkenny had an unemployment figure of 2,393. That was the situation in February 1982 compared to the situation that existed in December 1979 when 1,111 were unemployed in the county. Between December 1979 and February 1982 the unemployment figure in the county rose by more than 100 per cent. In June 1982 we could ill afford to add another 600 to that figure. It should be pointed out that in the same period the unemployment figure in Kilkenny city went up by 130 per cent.

We must bear in mind the many hardships created by this closure, particularly those in relation to youth unemployment. Hardships also exist for those who have expensive mortgages on houses. One of the many redundant workers who called to me last week told me that as a married man with one child he qualified for £59 per week unemployment benefit but his mortgage was £65 per week. He asked me what he would do but I could not offer him any help on the matter. He is one of the many who face problems in relation to a mortgage. Other workers received State grants to pull out of jobs in England and return to Kilkenny. The State paid them to return to Ireland and the question is, has the State a responsibility for those people?

It is difficult to describe the type of human devastation that has taken place as a result of the closure. In some cases workers gave up secure employment to return to Kilkenny. They were attracted by the lavish advertising campaign carried out by the company, aided and abetted by the State through the National Manpower Service. Those workers were also offered incentives in the form of grants to move residence. They now find that their world has been torn apart and nothing is being done about it.

The question being asked is, what can be done about this matter? Our motion seeks to direct the Government to do something. They have the power under the Industrial Development Act, 1977. For the enlightenment of the House I should like to quote what the then Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy O'Malley, said, on 2 November 1977 as reported in volume 301, column 156, of the Official Report:

The present Bill includes a provision which will extend the shareholding powers of the IDA. Under the Industrial Development Act, 1969, the IDA are empowered to take shares in certain industrial undertakings. Equity participation by the IDA can be an important and valuable part of the overall financial package put together to assist an industrial undertaking, and it can provide the State with a share in profitable new enterprises and thus secure a return on capital invested in industrial development.

Later in that debate the Minister said:

In order to remove the doubt regarding the authority's power to take majority shareholdings and to ensure that it has adequate flexibility to operate successfully in the increasingly sophisticated financial and industrial environment, I propose to extend the authority's shareholding powers to enable it to take shareholdings of up to 100 per cent in suitable industrial undertakings, or in companies participating in the ownership, control or management of suitable industrial undertakings, and to enable it to form or participate with others in the formation of new industrial companies.

I suggest that that is what should be done now. Some time ago the receiver indicated that more than 70 per cent of the output of Fieldcrest went to customers carrying their own labels. Those companies have indicated a willingness — at least they did before the Government allowed the plant to close — to continue business with a new company provided delivery, price and quality continued as they were. We are aware that the IDA approached many major textile concerns presumably on the basis of a complete takeover by those interests. That had little hope of success for many reasons, one being that most of those approached were directly in competition with the Kilkenny plant. It was in their commercial and business interest that Kilkenny would not continue to operate. It was all the more difficult to get a complete takeover of the plant when the Irish interests who had 49 per cent of the share capital and had carried the risk burden of the operation were no longer interested. The minimum package the IDA should have been instructed to offer was that they would take 49 per cent of the equity in a new company. Alternatively, the IDA could initially take a major shareholding with an agreement progressively to reduce this to 49 per cent once breakeven point had been reached in production. This would ensure that an international company would not be put off by the State having an initial major shareholding through the IDA.

No one is suggesting that the State should take over white elephants or lame ducks. Neither do I suggest this. We are all convinced, as are management and workers, that given the right marketing approach which of necessity would have to be under the control of Irish management, the plant could be viable in the long run. The company if re-constituted may not provide 630 jobs or it may well exceed that number. The point is that a £30 million investment should not be written off. Neither should the livelihood of 640 workers and their families be written off. Those jobs should not be snatched away without any attempt such as what I am suggesting being made. The unemployment situation could not be worse. When there is an investment of over £30 million involved surely what I am proposing should be attempted.

I appeal to the Minister to instruct the IDA to do this. It would cost about £12 million. Where will the money come from? The IDA allocation for 1982 should be able to cover it because we all know that new projects are very thin on the ground. Taking the ongoing commitments into account there should be extra resources available and, if necessary, I am sure the House would support a Supplementary Estimate to cover whatever amount was required and provide whatever working capital was necessary to get a new company going.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I would fully support any Supplementary Estimate to provide money for this company. However, I feel it could be done from the existing IDA allocation. We must remember the cost to the State: extra social welfare payments, loss of taxation and social welfare contributions. That would amount to £3 million per year or thereabouts. If a successful partnership can operate the plant for less than the amount we might provide, the Exchequer would be better off.

I acknowledge the efforts of the IDA who have tried everything to get a buyer for the plant as a going concern. It was almost an impossible task given that their brief was to sell it as a going concern. That is why I feel what I propose in the motion would be more practical and might meet with more success than has met the case to date. I ask the Minister to give the IDA the go-ahead with the necessary financial backing to put an attractive package together which will involve the State, management and workers. The State should take a majority share in the initial risk because there is no doubt about the ability of the plant to prove itself if given a reasonable chance. No one is convinced that it has been given a reasonable opportunity. This could be described as a desperate situation and, as such, every possible measure should be taken to maintain employment. With the right partnership and a majority holding by the State, I am convinced that the plant could be viable and give steady, good employment and contribute enormously to the economy.

The provision in the 1977 legislation made it necessary for the Minister to give his approval to IDA involvement by way of major equity holding. The Minister might say it was not the intention to use this provision for restructuring companies such as in the case of Fieldcrest but it makes sense to maintain employment as well as create new employment. The provision was clearly to create new employment but what is the point if, as is happening, job losses are exceeding the number of new jobs created? It is about time these provisions were used to maintain employment as well as creating new employment.

My party propose that a national development corporation be established to promote joint ventures with the private sector. It was never envisaged that this would be a home for lame ducks or white elephants. Neither do I suggest the IDA or the Government should artifically keep Fieldcrest open only to close it again in a few years' time. That would be an insult to the workers and a waste of public money. I am asking the Minister to give the IDA the necessary direction to go into partnership with a suitable company and, if necessary, with the existing management and workers make an arrangement which could effectively utilise the excellent plant and modern machinery in this factory. There is a highly qualified and skilled management and work force. They should be given an opportunity to create a new life for themselves. The workers and management are willing to make sacrifices to achieve this. The Minister must know that in the difficult months since the receiver went into the factory, the workers and management suffered much by way of making sacrifices, short time working and so on but they continued the operation in a way that impressed everyone who visited the factory. Unfortunately, though, the workers placed enough trust in the Minister and in the Government to have expected more from them. Perhaps I must share some responsibility in this regard also because I, too, shared that confidence. But we did have some justification for believing that the Minister would have his contingency plan ready for the time when the banks would pull out, and that the Government would be in a position to ensure the continuance of employment there until an alternative package was put together. On a number of occasions of deputations to the Minister, he seemed confident or hopeful——

——that he would have a contingency plan ready when needed. On the occasion of the first deputation in March, the Minister indicated that it would not be right or proper for the Government to step in with assistance in the first instance. There was a clear indication in that that they would step in perhaps in the second or in the third instance. Everyone on the deputation at that time understood what the Minister said regarding not giving a commitment in the first instance but even at the second deputation the Minister said that the Government did not propose to step in at that stage. In the light of the use of the words, "at that stage", one could hardly be blamed for believing that there was some stage at which the Government would intervene. I was aware that they campaigned in the general election on a slogan of "stop factory closures". If ever a pending closure was to be prevented it must have been in respect of Fieldcrest because it was the one that would hit hardest. It was the biggest in the country and the best of its kind in the world. What better example could any Government find for the purpose of showing that they meant what they said in regard to the closure of factories, to show that they were serious about the unemployment question?

I do not propose to go into the general financial background that made up the Fieldcrest company. It is sufficient at this stage to remind the House that the American company for relatively little money had control of the operation and that there were certain aspects of the whole operation that would need to be thoroughly examined. However, the top priority should be to reopen the plant. I have no wish to see those people who are engaged in efforts at re-opening it — the IDA, the Government or any other — using their time in holding a post-mortem at this stage. I am confident that some if not all of these people are seeking a solution to the problem. At the appropriate time an inquiry should be set up, but to set it up now would only complicate the whole process of trying to find perhaps a new company to take over the plant. If an inquiry were in process at this time it might be seen by some as a kind of witch hunt. The whole purpose of this motion is to put the people concerned back to work. No useful purpose would be served at this point by apportioning blame, if blame is to be apportioned, and I am not saying that is so.

I appeal to the House to support the motion and I trust that I have been able during my contribution to justify the necessity for the motion. The plant in question is a viable workable operation. It was opened officially less than two years ago. At that time the Minister concerned together with the heads of the various companies involved in the undertaking expressed much confidence about the future of the plant. However, they realised that there was a recession in Europe — indeed in the world — but despite that they were confident that all these difficulties could be overcome in time. Nobody said that the factory would make money in the short term. It was accepted that it would not be in a money-making position for some years. It was only in November last that a package was put together. It was based on reports available then. Only four months later the receiver was sent in but to show how up to date the situation was in a company of that size, the package was put together in November. At that time the participants — the Bank of Ireland, Carrolls and Fieldcrest — expressed confidence in that package. They said that while the road ahead would be tough they were confident that they would survive.

Since then Fieldcrest have pulled out but the point is that the plant can operate without Fieldcrest. The management, the skill and the know-how are available. What is needed is a marketing structure that can dig in to the European market and get its share of that market. What is required is aggressive and positive marketing. If this is achieved and if the Minister and the Government give to the workers and the management in this plant the necessary opportunities to do that, I am confident they will prove that the decision of the Government to allow this plant to close was wrong and one that should not have been taken. Therefore, I ask the House to support fully the motion before it.

(Waterford): I move. Amendment No. a.1.:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute:

"the Government commit itself to the continuation of the Fieldcrest plant as a textile plant in order to safeguard its huge investment and that the IDA be instructed to commit itself to this end with a view to creating maximum employment in the shortest possible time through any arrangement and furthermore Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to set up an inquiry into the establishment and subsequent collapse of the plant at Kilkenny with special emphasis on all the financial arrangements involved."

On moving the amendment on behalf of The Workers' Party I would like the Members of the Labour Party and the other parties concerned to study very carefully the language in which our amendment is phrased. It says that we are asking the Government to commit themselves to creating the maximum employment in the shortest possible time through any arrangements. Furthermore, we are seeking an inquiry into the establishment and subsequent collapse of Fieldcrest in Kilkenny. There is a fundamental difference between our amendment, the motion proposed by Deputy Pattison and the addendum of Deputy Crotty and Deputy Governey. Their motion does not include a call for an inquiry, which our party believe is an essential issue in the question of the closure of the Fieldcrest factory after a lifespan of less than two years. We do not support the Government's amendment which in its phraseology, states that Dáil Éireann supports the continuing efforts of the Government. In view of the efforts to date our party cannot lend support to the amendment as proposed by the Government.

Dealing with the proposition and addendum, it is of fundamental importance that an inquiry should take place. There are many reasons why it should take place, not least of which would be the fact of the huge investment of public funds, in the region of £12 million, and the failure within such a short time and the collapse of this industry that, to quote the IDA, was a blueprint for the future, one of the most modern plants in the world in relation to textiles. A "blueprint for the future" is now closing after a massive Government subvention and after less than two years. There is also the investment by another area of Government, the investment of approximately £1 million by AnCO in the training of personnel. Time without number various Taoisigh, Ministers and so on have spoken about the need for Irish industry to involve itself in the modern technological development taking place and to meet the challenge of the future. Here is a challenge that was met by the Government through AnCO at an expenditure of about £1 million and an investment through the IDA of about £12 million. Trained, skilled, Irish personnel have now been thrown on to the industrial scrap-heap.

Another factor which my party believe necessitates an inquiry into the closure of this factory is the extent of the commitment of the workforce of Fieldcrest. We have heard that 630 jobs were lost. The media from time to time have taken up and made public issue of closures in other areas much minor to this one and highlighted the impact of these smaller closures. The media are entitled to highlight these, but the scale of the closure and the redundancies in Fieldcrest warrant an in-depth investigation by all aspects of the media, and to date this investigation has not taken place. Why has it not taken place? Are they doing their job as they should be doing it? This is not a criticism. I have worked in the media. I speak as a Waterford Deputy and the effect of the closure of this factory with a loss of in excess of 630 jobs, which represents one-third of the total workforce of Kilkenny, would be equivalent to the effect on Waterford if Waterford Glass were to close down. It will cause immense and total devastation, economic disruption and hardship. I have spoken about the fact that 630 jobs have been lost as a result of this closure, but a key-note for the inquiry would be the method by which 250 of these workers were enticed by promises about the great future that this industry had to leave other places of employment and other places in the country to take up employment in Fieldcrest in Kilkenny, to come from abroad to develop their skills, to take up mortgages and so on. From that point of view alone this inquiry must take place.

In relation to the financial arrangements, I understand that roughly half the investment by the Bank of Ireland and Carrolls was borrowed. Did this cause undue financial strain in some fashion, perhaps leading the company into financial difficulties? This again is a subject matter for an inquiry.

One of the most crucial aspects of such an inquiry is the investment by Fieldcrest America, a modest investment by comparison with the State investment of approximately £12 million relating to the IDA and £1 million for training by AnCO, representing a total probably in excess of £13 million. The question must be posed: how did Fieldcrest America come into this country with a modest capital investment of £2.5 million and then gain 51 per cent of the equity of that company? With that investment they are now back in America having, more than likely, written off their £2.5 million investment against their tax returns and in the process are endeavouring to steal the marketing potential of Fieldcrest in Kilkenny. A very serious question arises, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, out of a discussion which your party had with both the management and the workforce. Here I must pay tribute to those parties concerned because rarely have I seen such unanimity of purpose and spirit of co-operation between management and workforce as exists between the management and workforce of Fieldcrest in Kilkenny, but they are asking a serious question, which must be posed should this inquiry take place, as to whether there was ever a serious attempt to market the product. The Fieldcrest America market operates from their plant in Carolina, and I understand that the lead personnel who are responsible for marketing their product throughout Europe have been retained to supply the market for America at the taxpayers' expense. We are given to understand further that the main customers of Fieldcrest in Kilkenny — Harrods and Marks and Spencers — have now been invited to — and no doubt will be lavishly entertained at — the headquarters of Fieldcrest America in Carolina, with a view to securing their contracts for the American company.

These are a few of the questions and doubts that exist not only in the minds of the management and the workers of Fieldcrest but in my party's mind also. These questions are of such crucial public importance that a public inquiry into this must take place. Having said that, it is fair to say that this closure represents possibly the single greatest failure of the IDA to date. It is not my intention to make a scapegoat of the IDA because we cannot overlook the culpability and liability of the Government of the day. After all, the Government of the day sanctioned, after detailed scrutiny by the Minister of the time, Deputy Keating, the go-ahead for this development. Even though the Government's amendment deals with one aspect of my party's motion, which calls for the Minister for Industry and Energy to inquire into the future of this project, I cannot, and my party will not, support the first line, which states that "Dáil Éireann supports the continuing efforts of the Government". Our opinion is that the appropriate time for the present Government initiative was when Fieldcrest America failed to honour the rescue package. Why at the time did the Minister not take the initiative to safeguard the taxpayers' huge investment in the Fieldcrest plant when the American company announced their intention of withdrawing from the operation by becoming directly involved and if necessary taking the role of the American company, particularly in view of the McKinsey Report that firmly established the viability of the market and the excellent quality of the product achieved in the plant? Why has the Minister insisted that the market was not viable? Indeed, on what grounds does the Minister make this statement? Will the Minister quote the reports in support of his argument? Is the Minister not aware that Fieldcrest America are making arrangements to take over the European market, as I have already stated? Would the Minister be prepared to investigate this matter with our European partners in the EEC?

During his general election campaign the Minister stated that the Government have a commitment to assist all ailing industries with a view to maintaining employment and this is precisely what the Fieldcrest workers are demanding now, particularly in view of the great commitment they have given to the industry over the past two years and because of the extent and nature of the personal commitments they are obliged to enter into arising out of their employment in the plant. It is our contention that this matter must not be left until the Minister gives a commitment to the continuation of this plant which will give some real hope to the workers and some confidence in the future. This is the least that would be expected of the Minister. Furthermore, the Minister must be aware that the management and workers are more than competent and, indeed, more than capable of operating this plant as a viable unit and all they require is a sales promotion on the European market. In conversations with both management and workers it came out quite clearly that they resent the implication that the factory could not operate without taxpayers' investment. This amounts to a vote of no confidence in Irish management and workers who have produced high quality products superior to those produced in Fieldcrest in America just because the Americans have pulled out.

Deputy Pattison spoke at length about the devastating impact of the closure of this factory. It is an economic disaster for Kilkenny city and the surrounding areas. The loss of PAYE and PRSI payments from the workforce represents £100,000 per week. In terms of unemployment benefit the State will now be committed to paying out approximately £240,000. But when one stands back and evaluates the whole circumstances surrounding the closure of Fieldcrest in Kilkenny, it must not be accepted as typical of the daily closures of factories because many of these factories are not in the same league in terms of capital investment. Many of them are non-competitive by virtue of the fact that much of the plant they have is obsolete. But this is not true of Fieldcrest in Kilkenny. Fieldcrest in Kilkenny have the most modern plant of its kind in the world and yet after two years they are closing down. In discussion with both management and workers it has been stated that they are fearful that there may be an attempt by the receiver within the next couple of weeks to hive off sections of the plant to recoup the losses arising out of them. The Minister must use all his influence with the receiver to ensure that this does not happen. I appeal publicly to the unions involved in Fieldcrest not to allow such an eventuality to come to pass.

In conclusion, I have listened to and studied the Labour Party motion. My party are not simply putting down their amendment to go one better than the Labour Party in this issue because this matter is so serious it overrides all political considerations. In that event I am making a public appeal to Deputy Pattison that if he is prepared to compromise with our motion dealing with Fieldcrest, if they are prepared to incorporate the inquiry aspect of our motion then The Workers' Party will support the motion of the Labour Party in this matter.

Both of the last speakers, Deputies Pattison and Gallagher, have understandably dwelt at length on the dimensions of the calamity that has befallen the city and county of Kilkenny as a result of the closure of the Fieldcrest plant. One can do nothing but agree with many of the sentiments they have expressed when one looks back on the high hopes that were entertained for Fieldcrest a mere two years ago, when what we all believed and still believe to be the most modern plant in the world was launched and began to produce goods of the very highest quality. Two years afterwards the whole project is blasted off the face of the map. Now we are told by some people that the plant was obsolete to begin with. I think that an error of catastrophic dimensions has been made first of all in the closure of the plant and in the establishment at all of a plant that would inevitably close after two years because it was felt to be in some way obsolete. I do not believe this is so but if it is so it had better be investigated thoroughly. I said that some catastrophic error had been made and it is a question of finding out now who made the error, not to victimise whoever made it but to know the reason. What the workers in Kilkenny are asking and will continue to ask is if there is any redress for them. Deputy Pattison mentioned young people who will now be getting £50 a week in unemployment benefit and whose mortgage repayments are nearly 20 per cent more than that. That is not exceptional. That is typical because I am sure there are hundreds of young people in precisely the same position because, as was pointed out here before, the average wage of the workforce is remarkably low.

As has been pointed out, people were brought home from Britain and elsewhere with the prospect of establishing their own homes here. They are entitled to ask if they can get any assistance to rebuild their lives that were shattered by this calamity. The Fieldcrest plant is in my own parish, where I was born, reared and still live. I would like to know on behalf of my neighbours whether the Government believe that a viable plant can be operated profitably again by the introduction and operation of a marketing arm. If this were found not to be possible, I would like to know, because these are the questions the workers will ask me. What will be done with the plant? Will it continue to be a textile plant producing a slightly different product? If so, who would operate it? If all the efforts of the IDA, the Government and interested parties are to get a viable plant running again, employing the 640 former employees, what use has the Minister in mind for the premises? As has already been pointed out, this is a huge factory, there is no other like it in Ireland. This is not a boast, but it might very well be an apology. The economy of the whole of County Kilkenny crashed with the closure of that plant and these people need answers to their questions.

There are precedents where the Government took special action when industries were experiencing difficulties. I am reluctant to name them but I feel I must — the Tuam sugar factory, the Talbot motor plant, the Clondalkin Paper Mills, Clover Meats, the Whitegate Refinery and, lastly and most remarkable, a few weeks ago, on a Tuesday night, a Minister told us of the intention to discontinue the operation of the Ardmore Studios, and the next night that decision was reversed. I realise there are sharp differences in the matter of scale in these industries, but the inference is inescapable. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If special measures were adopted for the people working in the industries I mentioned, it is logical for the people in the Fieldcrest plant to ask if those rules will apply to them. If they do not, I am afraid all the children of the nation are not being treated equally. This matter must be of grave concern to the Government and it is a matter of life and death to the politicians in the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny. The workers of Fieldcrest must know the answers to these questions immediately.

I do not think this is a time for speeches of the live horse get grass kind. I realise the mechanics of reactivating the Fieldcrest plant are formidable but we have very efficient State agencies. The IDA have shown themselves to be enterprising and their enterprise can be reactivated a second time. I do not know of any case in our history where action of a special kind was called for as urgently by so many people as in this case. I am not speaking merely of the future of the work force, big as it is, I am speaking of the whole county of Kilkenny. When one contemplates the abstraction from the income of the city and county, one cannot but see that the future of every man, woman and child in that county will be very considerably reduced if this plant closes. That is a very serious matter to which I draw the Minister's attention once again.

I thank the Minister for his reception of me and my colleagues on several deputations. He was extremely patient with us. The people of Kilkenny are very patient too. They are prepared to wait, but not indefinitely for the re-establishment of their employment in Kilkenny.

I am not sure how it came about that the Fieldcrest plant was established in Kilkenny but what is relevant is that it was established there and was staffed by Kilkenny men and women. Therefore, it is not acceptable that the rug should be pulled from under their feet, that the key should be turned quietly in the lock and that one should walk away and allow the economic standards in Carlow-Kilkenny to collapse to a level they have not hit in many decades.

There are a number of amendments to this motion. I do not think industries are established or maintained by the passage of motions on the Order Paper of this House, although they are very important. If Deputies on this side of the House were to support any amendment, except the Minister's, all that would result would be that the present Government would collapse, presumably there would be a general election and a new Government would be formed. It is very plain to every honest Deputy that for the new Government, whoever they might be, it would be just as difficult to find the economic resources as for the present Government, to get the Fieldcrest plant going again. I do not propose by my vote to bring down the Government because I do not believe that is the solution to this problem. If I did, I would be obliged to vote for the motion. I do not believe the passage of these motions, which are political in themselves, will offer any tangible suggestions as to how the plant could be maintained or how the money could be raised to allow the operation of the Fieldcrest plant to continue.

I accept that the motion and the amendments serve a useful purpose in allowing the House to discuss this grave situation but I do not think they offer any tangible suggestions as to how the money could be raised to allow the operations of the company to continue; in other words, to allow the Kilkenny workers, men and women, to continue in their jobs and to continue to pay for their houses and their investments in the future.

I am confident the Government will listen to what has been said by Deputies on all sides of the House. We are attempting to articulate a feeling that is passionately felt by the men, women and children of Kilkenny. It is our business to articulate what they feel. If we did not attempt to do so to the best of our ability we would be failing in our duty as Deputies who have the honour to represent them. Therefore, we must speak plainly and call a spade a spade.

I appeal once more to the Minister to look at the human tragedy that has occurred in Kilkenny and I appeal to the Government to look at their own priorities. I ask them to consider postponing other schemes they may be contemplating and to take some action here. This is a matter that will brook no postponement. If that were to be contemplated, the city and county of Kilkenny would be the poorer for many a long day.

I move that the amendment in my name be added to the motion put down by Deputy Pattison. This motion is quite specific in that it asks the Minister to take certain action to reopen the factory and the Deputy points out what action should be taken. My amendment calls on the Government "to provide the necessary finance and to take whatever steps are necessary to effect this in 1982."

From the contributions of all concerned the message should be getting home to the Minister at this stage. It is the third time in a few weeks that we have debated the matter on the floor of the House. The Minister has had to sit here and listen to Deputies who have pointed out why the factory should be re-opened immediately. It is my contention that the company should not be allowed to close. The company is trading. A receiver is managing it and I understand that up to three container loads of towels leave that factory every day. We are not talking about something that is defunct. We are talking about a factory that is operating and if they were called upon to do so in the morning the workers would be ready to put the factory into full production.

This factory is most important to Kilkenny. It has a considerable effect on the economy not only of that county but also of the surrounding counties and I think that perhaps the Minister should have taken a look at it. It is a unique company. It was set up in 1977 and two outstanding concerns were involved, namely, Carrolls and the Bank of Ireland, together with an American company. They set up what is one of the most modern factories in Ireland. It covers 11 acres and it is sited on 40 acres of landscaped ground.

The factory warranted a visit from the Minister and I am disappointed we had not a visit from him to show his concern for the traumatic events that took place. At a meeting of Kilkenny Corporation last night a resolution was passed unanimously seeking a meeting with the Taoiseach. We hope the Taoiseach will meet a deputation who will bring home to him as head of the Government, in the office where the buck must stop, that action must be taken immediately to put the company back into operation and to get the 630 people back to work.

When I put down the amendment I was not being political about it. I am rather surprised that any action on the Order Paper should be referred to as being political. In our efforts to help the people who are involved in the closure all Deputies came together and spoke with one voice. Our aim will continue to be the re-opening of the factory and the provision of employment for people who have lost their jobs.

Perhaps the Deputy will allow me to interrupt for one moment? I wish to advise the House that at the moment the motion and the first amendment are the only items before the House. We are discussing the spirit of the other amendments but the technicality is that the amendment in the name of the Minister or in the name of Deputy Crotty has not yet been moved. It is a technicality that need not disturb anyone——

I will move it now.

No, the Deputy may not move it now but he may speak on it. The position is that neither amendment has been moved formally. It does not inhibit discussion in any way but it might be important at a later stage.

I was not aware that this was the case. It was not my intention to deprive Deputy Crotty of the right to move his own motion.

I think Deputy Crotty will accept that, as the Chair accepts it.

My name appeared on the amendment and I thought I should have been called if somebody else did not offer. However, I am an easy man to get along with——

I am sorry to tell the Deputy that such wishful thinking is not accommodated in Standing Orders.

I dealt briefly with the setting up of the industry and I pointed out how well it was received in Kilkenny and in the country as a whole. Carroll's were diversifying from their traditional involvement in the tobacco industry and the banks for the first time were prepared to take equity in a company. We are all aware that the banks will loan you money if you can prove to them you do not really want it. When Fieldcrest came on the scene the Bank of Ireland got involved and took equity in this company and I felt this was a new era in industrialisation. As a result it is all the more disappointing that this industry should be allowed to fail. Why did this happen? I will deal with this later on.

In Kilkenny the arrival of this wonderful industry, the most modern in the world, with a bright future, led to a lot of activity. There was an expansion of the fire services, which cost a substantial amount; water and sewerage works were extended and more schools and houses were built. Business houses expanded, took on new commitments and created new jobs. We are not just talking about the loss of 630 jobs in Fieldcrest; we are also talking about a loss of 400 to 500 jobs in service and back-up industries in Kilkenny. The Minister and the Government are not taking stock of this development and investment made by the local authority and by local industry.

It has been said before, but I think it is worth repeating, that it is the workers who suffer most. I was at many workers' meetings and it was remarkable to note how many speakers had English accents. They had spent a considerable time working in England and this was the first time they had got an opportunity to return to their native country to work and rear their families. Fieldcrest was the first Government-sponsored industry to come to Kilkenny. All the other industries there were started by local effort. Before that we had been a commercial city serving the agricultural hinterland which is so important to the well-being of our county. We were a centre for insurance companies and banks. The arrival of an industry of this magnitude was bound to have an effect on the city. The result was that we had an influx of people from all over the country, and also from abroad, to work in Kilkenny; and now they are wondering what happened. Why were they told there was a rosy future for them in this industry and why was it let fail? They deserve answers to these questions. It is very easy to fob off unemployed people and to say that they get as much in unemployment benefit anyway. These people do not want unemployment benefit. I have spoken to them on many occasions over the last few weeks and months and they are not interested in unemployment benefit.

When this industry was established the workers had a great sense of pride. In two-and-a-half years of operation it is their proud boast that there was only one stoppage lasting for half an hour. We had excellent labour relations and a workforce who were prepared to pull with one another and with management to make a success of their factory. There were difficulties at the start and new technology took time to sort out. We had four important units — spinning, weaving, dyeing and make-up — and it was a new concept to incorporate them all into one unit. This took some time and there was a fair amount of finance lost in this operation. The Minister referred to a loss of £10 million. When one takes into consideration the amount of funds that were lost in setting up this plant and getting it working in a streamlined fashion, it is clear that a substantial portion of this £10 million was assigned to that operation. I do not accept that the losses were as great as the Minister stated. He is not delving into what caused these losses and he was prepared to take advice from people in Dublin rather than from people in Kilkenny who were working on the plant.

I will tell the Deputy tomorrow how the losses occurred.

We will be very interested to hear if the Minister is going to set up an investigation into how all the money was lost and why a situation was allowed to arise and continue whereby a visiting company, who set up an operation like this, invested £2 million in it and then coolly walked away. We want the Minister to provide funds to re-open this factory.

I dealt with the problems of setting up this factory and the difficulties which arose. When the problems were ironed out production was brought to a high level in a very short time. The problem then was that people were producing a high grade product so fast that the warehouses were full. We were producing a first-class product. When the factory in Kilkenny were supplying one of the major outlets in the UK there was a problem about supplies at one stage and they got supplies from the American factory. This product was sent back to the American factory and the UK company said they wanted the Kilkenny product. There was no problem about quality: we had the highest quality and we had the production. Therefore we must ask ourselves: where did we fall down? We fell down on sales. The whole question of viability of this company hinges on sales. The Minister does not believe this company is viable; I do. The workers in Kilkenny believe that it is viable and we are asking the Minister to take the necessary action to provide funds to the receiver to re-open this factory and to get it working.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share