I should remind the House that Private Members' Business will be extended by ten minutes to 8.40 p.m.
Private Members' Business. - Limerick Industrial Project: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Reynolds on Tuesday, 28 May 1985:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for its decision to reject the Hyster Industry for Limerick and the surrounding area in view of the disastrous unemployment situation in that region.
Debate resumed on amendment No.1:
To delete all the words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"recognises the right of the Government, pursuant to Section 42 of the Industrial Development Act, 1969, (as amended by Section 3, 1975; Section 6, 1978 and Section 3, 1981 Acts) to approve grants in excess of £2.5 million and endorses the policies being pursued by the Minister and the Government in line with the White Paper on Industrial Policy and in the National Plan—Building on Reality— in order to promote investment and create the economic and financial conditions in which sustainable new employment can be created throughout the country, including the Limerick area.”
—(Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism.)
I was speaking last evening about the main Government argument, namely, the risk factor involved in this project. Of course there was some element of risk involved in a project of this nature. The reality of international commerce is that there is fierce competition between competing countries for these kinds of projects particularly when they are of a labour-intensive nature, as admittedly this one was. Against that background of cut-throat international competition, do the Government seriously expect to be able to bring 800 well paid and secure jobs to Limerick without incurring any risk? If that is what they think, they are very far divorced from the real world.
When the late Deputy Seán Lemass was developing this economy and industrialising it in the late fifties and early sixties, he had to take risks. He had to offer something for what the people were to get. The strategy worked and within a decade the industrial face of the country was transformed. It seems that we have come a long way from the spirit of adventure and calculated intelligent risk taking of those days to today's era of penny pinching, book-keeping and paper-clip economics. The projected operation at Annacotty was phase two of a two phase operation. Everyone admits that phase one was the phase to which the greatest risk attached but that phase has been extremely successful and profitable. In saying that I am relying not only on my own information but on objective publicised reports by respected commentators.
I take this opportunity of congratulating the IDA for pursuing that project assiduously and on their success in persuading Hyster to come to Limerick but it is regrettable that that success has been marred by the practice of 17th century economics.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Last night the Minister made a statement that was an insult to the House and to the people of Limerick. He made the point that retained earnings would only be reinvested in the Irish economy by Hyster if those earnings materialised. What does the Minister think Hyster were coming to Ireland for? Was it to enjoy living under a Coalition Government?
That is doubtful.
Does the Minister not realise that Hyster were coming here to make profits? Did he think they would continue to operate here for up to eight years perhaps without making profit? What does the Minister take us on this side of the House for? What does he take the people of Limerick and in particular the people of Annacotty for? They will give him his answer on 20 June. The Minister said that his decision copperfastened the principle that the ultimate responsibility for those projects rested with the Government of the day. Has anybody on this side of the House, either inside or outside, ever denied that? Not only do we not deny it but we accept it and have put it into practice. We refused projects such as the De Lorean project when it was right to do so. The Government have turned down the Hyster project when according to all the independent economic analysts, it was wrong to turn it down. The Minister said also that the IDA did not know what finance would be available to them because the national plan was only being drafted at the time. What an insult to the House and to the people. Does that mean that regardless of what project might have come to the country at that time and no matter how good the offer or how stable or permanent the jobs involved, it could not have been taken on simply because the IDA were not aware of what finance they would have by reason of the national plan only being in the process of being drafted? If the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism had no better argument to put across the Floor of the House, would he not have been better to admit that he was wrong? Had he done so the people would have more respect for the Government and for the House. Deputy William O'Brien said that I was in some way afraid of the Minister for Justice. I think it is a question of the Minister for Justice being afraid of me and afraid of Fianna Fáil.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
He is afraid of this debate. Where is he this evening?
Were was he last evening?
I have fought three elections in Limerick East with the Minister for Justice and on each occasion I not only beat him on first preferences but increased my majority over him. On the last occasion, as anyone who checks the facts whether from Magill magazine or elsewhere will find, I beat the Minister by more than 2,000 first preferences and I will beat him by double that number on the next occasion.
The Minister for Justice is very concerned about me because he sent his local handler around to various news media in Limerick to denigrate me personally and to slander me. This was because I revealed a story to the media. In that context I wish to congratulate the Limerick Leader for their fair, objective and unbiased reporting of this scandal. The Minister for Justice sent around his local handler to undermine me because I had had the courage to reveal these facts, facts that should have been made clear to the public by the Government. I will name the man concerned. He is Mr. Tony Brazil, the Chairman of Limerick Tourism and the local handler of the Minister for Justice.
The Deputy should not name people who cannot defend themselves.
I withdraw the reference to this gentleman's name and say instead that the local handler of the Minister for Justice, a well known travel agent in Limerick who hopes to be rewarded for his efforts by being appointed next chairman of Bord Fáilte, tried to denigrate me to the media. I suggest to the gentlemen of the Press who are here this evening that they should watch that space when the appointment is being made. I will be very surprised if the next chairman of Bord Fáilte is not that same local handler of the Minister for Justice.
If the practice in which the Deputy is indulging were allowed to develop it would lead to very serious abuses.
The Deputy is making a confident prophecy.
In fairness, the Deputy is trying to defend his personal reputation and character against an unknown activist working on behalf of the Minister for Justice.
Senior members of Deputy O'Dea's party should not encourage him to indulge in a practice that is not in keeping with the standards of the House.
Since the Government came into power there has been an antiLimerick bias in all decisions of substance taken by them. They reneged on a commitment by the previous Government to send 800 civil servants to Limerick. The disgraceful ideological wrangling between the left wing and the right wing of the Government led to our being deprived of natural gas and now we have been deprived of 800 jobs. When a decision had to be made between Limerick and Tralee for the establishment of the Burlington industry, Tralee won hands down, thanks to the Tánaiste. The left wing of the Government in the form of the Tánaiste has deprived us of natural gas, while the right wing in the form of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism has deprived us of 800 jobs. Again, I must ask where our own Minister, the Minister for Justice, is this evening. The political correspondent of the Sunday Independent, Mr. Joseph O'Malley, predicted in last Sunday's edition of that paper that the Taoiseach — obviously in an effort to distance the Government from the sort of decisions being made by the Minister for Finance — is prepared to shift that Minister aside in September next and to give the Finance portfolio to the Minister for Justice.
I am no admirer of the Minister for Finance but if the Taoiseach decides to replace him by the Minister for Justice and if that Minister's performance on behalf of Ireland equates with his performance on behalf of my constituency, all I can say is God help us because he is easily the most worthless and useless representative we have ever had from Limerick at Cabinet level in terms of tangible economic achievement. I include Deputies from the Minister's party such as Deputy O'Donnell who would not have run away and tried to cloak this scandal. However, we found out what happened and all credit is due to the Limerick Leader for publishing the story. They have maintained their honourable tradition of fair and objective reporting. Long may they continue.
Clearly the Government are pursuing a policy of abandoning regional economic development. Even before the Hyster decision up to 80 per cent of the IDA proposals sanctioned by the Government were for the greater Dublin region but the mid-western region about which we are particularly concerned this evening was always the local point of expansion under Fianna Fáil not just for its own sake but for the sake of national economic expansion having regard to the educational and other infrastructure built up there and the link between that and industrial activity. That mid-western region as Deputy O'Dea pointed out very effectively has been decimated under this Government by factory closures, unemployment and in this instance by a Government who reneged on their obligation and agreement.
Looking at the Front Bench and comparing it with the Minister who is not here, the Minister who represents Limerick, it can be confidently said that the next Fianna Fáil administration, soon to come into office, will have a very strong representation from the mid-western region as has this Fianna Fáil administration as is evident from my colleagues here this evening. That has been the way and will continue to be the way.
Rubbish.
We hear the lone voice from the west. There is no one listening to her.
The Deputy would be surprised.
She needs a handler.
Private Members' time seems to be degenerating into a brawl. There will have to be a hearing for every Member.
I appreciate that and will continue on that basis. Unemployment has more than doubled since this Government came into office. This is particularly so in the mid-western region and Deputies present could tell of the same experience from their part of the constituency. The truth is that not only have the Government no concern for regional economic development but they have no concern for the mid-western region in which we took great pride and invested very considerably in terms of educational and industrial infrastructure. That is going back more than ten years and indeed has been the case in the 20 years in which I have been a Member of the Oireachtas. The disastrous unemployment figures would have been considerably higher were it not for emigration which stands at 30,000 per annum.
The decision to scrap the Hyster project undermined the credibility of the IDA. The Government distorted the figures agreed between the IDA and Hyster to convey the impression that the Government funding was on a ratio of 11:1. They then gave another figure of 14:1. That was a distortion of the agreement entered into between the IDA and Hyster. While in Government I and other colleagues had some experience of dealing with the IDA and it is clear that they would never have contemplated such an unacceptable package. Of course the truth is they never did. The State investment of £10.7 million like the Hyster investment of £10.6 million was to be made available in four instalments over a period of ten years. That is a standard practice in the IDA and it was built into the Hyster operation. The agreement entered into ensured that at no stage would the Government investment be forthcoming unless matched by the agreed contribution, at the same stage, by the Hyster company.
The Government decision to cut the State grant by £1 million effectively repudiated the agreement already reached. The Government action in changing their decision at the last minute was unprecedented and cast a serious doubt on the authority and bona fides of the IDA in all negotiations with potential investors. Unilateral variations on agreed terms is understandably regarded as sharp practice in the commercial world, it is sharp practice in the commercial world, it is very sharp practice indeed when it is done by a Government. When it is done by a Government in respect of a major international company of the status of Hyster the reverberations in the international business community are obviously enormous and far-reaching because the contacts which a company of that status would have with others who might be contemplating investment in Ireland will be such as to raise very serious doubts in the minds of some of their associates and potential investors in this nation.
What major company would now be willing to undertake detailed and time-consuming negotiations in the knowledge that at the last minute the Government might unilaterally attempt to alter the terms of the agreement? What company of any consequence would enter into all the detailed, painstaking, time-consuming procedures in the knowledge that there is a Government who at the last minute could change the proposed agreement and not only that but would try to distort what was agreed between them and the IDA, which has always been regarded as a bona fide organisation? The only precedent was the action of the De Lorean motor company in increasing their demand when the IDA proposal was already before the Government for consideration. Not surprisingly when that unilateral action was attempted by the De Lorean company the then Fianna Fáil Government, of which a number of us present in the House were members, after full consultation with the IDA, which is essential, refused to condone any such practice and the Government withheld their approval from that project.
That is different from what is happening here. The difference is that in this case the Government are following the De Lorean practice and not that of successive Governments over the years. They tried to change the terms of the agreement at the last minute and this is sharp practice which one would not like to see from any Government. We have paid the price and will continue to do so for a long time. The Government have not only undermined the credibility of the IDA but the credibility of any Government in relation to agreements with international companies. Unfortunately we have seen too many examples of that from this Government. In abandoning the regions the Government are abandoning their own fate. They recognise that their electoral fate is already well sealed in Limerick, Clare and North Tipperary.
Speak for North Tipperary. We will take care of Clare, do not worry.
After the next election the best prospect they will have is for five seats out of the 20 in that region.
Your party surveys have not shown that in the mid-western region.
I do not include two from Clare in that optimistic assessment. The people in that region are being made to pay the price in advance by way of Government punishment for the inevitable election results which will follow, particularly in that region. I hope it will not be too long before we have the chance to redress that balance in Government and we will then discharge our obligations to the people of that region.
I regret the unnecessary and unjustified attack by Deputy O'Dea on the Minister for Justice. It was an unfortunate attempt by the Deputy to denigrate.
I will defend myself.
I am determined to have order on Private Members' Business. There was order for Deputy O'Kennedy and I will not allow the Minister or any other speaker to be subjected to a barrage when they speak.
It was a most unfortunate attempt to denigrate a very successful Minister who has done the country proud in his role as Minister for Justice. Perhaps the Deputy is nervous about retaining his seat or maybe he has an inferiority complex.
The Minister should speak for himself.
I put it down to that and to lack of experience. However, Deputy O'Dea at least recognised that there was an element of risk in the project. That is a fair point and he is the first speaker from the Opposition to recognise it. The so-called second phase carries with it a certain risk and there is no doubt that the stucture of the project was not without risk, possibly serious risk.
We have been negotiating with an international company but it should also be pointed out that it was their intention to establish an independent company to carry out their operations as proposed and there would not have been any inter-linking with the parent company. We were looking at a stand alone operation which, if it failed, would have left the IDA without redress to the parent company.
I should like to comment on other points made by Deputy O'Dea and Deputy Reynolds. It was interesting to see the Opposition quoting figures and statistics which they said were factual. Those figures gave a very distorted view of the State versus company exposure in the early years of the project. They also gave the mistaken impression that 800 jobs would be provided in the first or early years of the project and that is not true.
Nobody said that.
As indicated clearly last night by the Minister, Deputy Bruton, the overall State financial exposure in direct Exchequer moneys to the project in the first three years would have been of the order of £7 million and that would be against a guaranteed cash injection by Hyster from the company's own sources for the same period of £1 million.
Nonsense.
There is no point in saying that. I have outlined the factual situation which cannot be distorted by frivolous comments by members of the Opposition.
(Interruptions.)
They are like a nuns' chorus over there.
Deputies will have an opportunity to contribute later on.
Any other moneys from Hyster were to come by way of retained earnings from profits and any further injection from retained earnings were dependent on the company making sufficient profits and, of course, there was no guarantee of this.
This is pathetic.
The Members should listen to me as I listened to them last night. They made a lot of noise but they did not make much sense. There was no guarantee of profits, there never is in business and this project was not without risk. The Government, representing the taxpayers, a group of people whom the Opposition do not seem to represent, were reluctant to put up so much State moneys against so little by the promoters. They were entitled to make that judgment on behalf of the people.
Deputy Reynolds was inaccurate when he spoke of Hyster investment coming from bank guarantees. There were no such guarantees and it is very misleading for a Front Bench spokesman in Opposition to make false allegations on such an important issue. Any further cash injection or commitent to the project had to come from profits.
With regard to the question of jobs, the figure of around 800 being touted was the projected employment figure for the tenth year of the operation, should the project successfully run its course. It should be clearly understood, however, that there were to be only 48 people employed after the first year, rising to 140 after three years. This was at a time when the Government would have been exposed to spending £7 million in investment. By the sixth year there were to be about 287 jobs, a good deal fewer than the figure of 800 bandied around here.
Deputy Reynolds placed great stress on comments made by the chairman of Hyster, Mr. Kilkenny. What else did he expect Mr. Kilkenny to say? However, the Deputy conveniently neglected to point out that Mr. Kilkenny also stated that he harboured no resentment against the IDA or the Government and that he would not hesitate to come back to do a deal in Ireland again. Indeed, he would be very welcome. In the Sunday Independent of 26 May 1985 he said that the Government have the right to do what they thought best and that he accepted their decision in this matter.
Mr. Kilkenny is a most astute businessman but, just as his priority is to get the best deal with the greatest profit for his shareholders, so must the Government's priority be to get the best deal for the Irish taxpayer. It is not inevitable that the priorities of a company and the Government can never be reconciled. In this particular case, however, the Government considered that there was too much of a gap between what the State would have been obliged to put forward and what the company were prepared to invest in what they claimed to be a sound venture. Each project has to be considered on its own merits. This does not mean that the Government's industrial policy has been changed in any way. Both the IDA and the Government have consistently maintained the highest standards of evaluation of potential industrial projets. The decision on the Hyster proposal was taken in the light of the very particular circumstances of that case. Just as Mr. Kilkenny would not hesitate to return to do another deal, I would urge all industrialists to examine the very great potential of Ireland as a profitable industrial location.
The decision not to approve particular proposals for the Hyster package was taken by the Government after very careful consideration of all the facts. Deputy Reynolds implied, mistakenly, last night the decision on this case may not have been taken by the whole Cabinet. I would like to set him straight in this matter. The view shared by the whole Government was that the input from the company was so light that the Government could not be satisfied that it was worth while putting money into a project which the company could pull out of very easily without losing too much of their own money. Lest anyone be under any misapprehension, the Government have the power under the industrial development legislation to permit the making of grants in excess of certain statutory grant limits imposed on the IDA. In this regard the Cabinet was concerned that the contributions of the State and the promotor were disproportionate and that greater financial input was required from the company. That was surely a responsible and reasonable position for a Government to take.
The Minister should have given another £1 million. That defuses his argument.
Would the members of the Opposition not agree that if the promotors had sufficient confidence in their own project they would have put up that £1 million?
That was the misjudgment this Government made. They did not know the company they were dealing with.
This Government decision does not cut across the autonomy and independance of the Industrial Development Authority. The Government have a statutory role in decisions relating to industrial projects involving heavy Exchequer investment. This is not a rubber stamping process and decisions are taken in the light of all available information. The IDA's position is not undermined by this since the authority are fully aware of the Government's statutory powers. The fact remains that the Government makes policy and the IDA execute that policy. This has always been the position and the IDA fully recognise it, and did so in their statement on 17 May last on this issue.
The Government have a responsibility to attract new projects and to create new jobs in Ireland, not only in Dublin but on a regional basis, and we are not neglecting our duty in this regard. The Government also have a wider responsibility to the taxpayer and that is to ensure that taxpayers' money is not squandered. In all respects, this Government have lived up to their responsibilities. We look after the taxpayers' money and this is a reflection of good Government, not bad Government. The IDA likewise perform a very valuable role recognised by all in attracting and promoting Ireland as a location for investment.
Let me now give some examples of how the Government's policy of promoting investment and creating sustainable new employment has been translated into practical terms as far as the Limerick area is concerned. Elfab Europe BV, manufacturing a range of electronic components, commenced operations in Limerick in early 1984 and are building up employment towards an eventual target of 300 jobs as the project develops, a sound project——
How many are there now?
TFX, which commenced operations in Annacotty in 1983 to produce extruded plastic tubing has a final employment target of over 100 jobs: Sadr Limited——
How many are there now? Are there ten?
Fewer than ten.
——manufacturing Arabesque reproductions such as plastics, screens, panels, etc., industrial components and domestic appliances, has a final employment target of 60 jobs; VIP Electronics are setting up an international service operation for the development and testing of electronic components and have a final target of 50 jobs; M & Q Plastic Products and Neo Data Services are continuing to expand. All these projects have been given financial support by the Exchequer. Between 1980 and 1984, I might add, a total of £85 million in investment was approved towards the creation of new jobs for the Limerick area.
The Plessey Technological Park situated approximately 2.5 miles from Limerick city centre, has all the ingredients of a successful technological park of which Limerick can feel justifiably proud. This park incorporates the National Institute for Higher Education — Ireland's first technological university; the Thomond College of Education; the IDA's Business Park for International Service Industry, together with a site for the location of new manufacturing industry. The IDA's and SFADCo's regional offices, the Micro Electronics Application Centre, the Innovation Centre and the IIRS are also located there. All of these, while I am not necessarily taking credit for them on behalf of the Government, nevertheless provide further tangible proof of the Government's continued commitment to the Limerick area.
I now want to make some general comments in relation to overall policy considerations as they relate to this debate.
One of the important issues highlighted in the White Paper on Industrial Policy was the need to maximise value from the State resources allotted to industrial development. In 1983 almost £750 million was devoted directly and indirectly towards the promotion of industry. In view of existing budgetary constraints and the overall burden of taxation, the Government consider it to be of the utmost importance to ensure that we get the best value in terms of jobs, exports and spin-off benefits from this expenditure. It is inevitable that to be effective, such consideration will impact on grant applications from certain major overseas projects where the Oireachtas has already determined that the Government have a statutory responsibility. As the Minister, Deputy Bruton, indicated clearly to this House last night, the industrial development legislation specifies that in the case of all industrial projects involving payments in excess of certain statutory grant limits imposed on the IDA, Government approval is necessary. Overseas promoters are well aware of this, and I am sure Deputy O'Kennedy is also aware of it.
The White Paper and the national plan strongly reaffirm that there will be no alteration in our attractive promotion and incentive package for overseas companies. From now on, however, the emphasis will be on higher grants for projects which embody the key business functions and lower grants for less attractive projects. But, in all cases, there must be a reasonable balance between the promoters' capital and IDA fixed asset grants.
That has always been the case.
And we will make sure that continues to be the case. Such a balance is necessary to ensure not only that the venture has an adequate equity base, but that the promoter has a substantial stake in the enterprise and therefore will be concerned for its success and that the State's exposure in the event of failure is limited.
The fact the Ireland is a profitable location for overseas investment is a major element of the IDA's promotion programme. If this were not generally the case we would not attract these companies to Ireland in the first place.
But the White Paper emphasises also the importance of selectivity in the use of State aids. The concept will be enshrined in the new Industrial Development Bill which we will be shortly putting before the House. In this regard the Government have the support of the Telesis and NESC analysis which forcibly argued for greater selectivity in the use of industrial incentives for the concentration on key cost disadvantages in logistics, product and process development, export marketing, linkages and skills. As far as overseas investment is concerned, this means that increased attention will be paid to the overall quality of the project in terms of number and skill level of jobs, commercial viability, market potential and the likely return to the economy and the Exchequer on the State's investment.
The industrial policies being pursued by this Government are the right ones. For the first time ever, they have been clearly set out and explained to native and overseas industrialists through the Government's White Paper and national plan. Of underlying importance is the generation of an environment associated with an adequate supply of robust business entities. Recent developments on this front have been — and this is a pleasant change from what prevailed under the regime in power in 1977-81 — a reduction in inflation, a key influence on risk and profitability of success, from 18 per cent in 1982 to a level of just over 6 per cent in 1985; steps are afoot to rationalise our cumbersome industrial relations procedures; the development of our telecommunications services has continued at an impressive pace; major road bottlenecks have been alleviated and further substantial developments are planned under the national plan; the expansion of key elements of our third level educational system designed to provide the appropriate skills and business acumen to industry has been escalated and imaginative tax incentives have been introduced, and subsequently improved, which are designed to encourage personal investment in industry and international services.
As a result of these and other developments I believe that a substantive improvement in the environment for business has taken place and that this trend will continue.
Another element of the Government's overall strategy is directly to influence, through the provision of appropriate incentives, the supply of entrepreneurs and companies willing to use Ireland as a base for the development of their businesses. Our range and level of incentive programmes are second to none and embrace small industry, enterprise development, technology transfer, company development, national linkage, feasibility, research and development and new industry.
There is every indication now, I am glad to say, that this new strategy is paying off for the country, the Government are doing their job and the IDA are doing their job, and the business climate for new investment and new sustainable employment creation, has improved very substantially.
I call on the House, therefore, to endorse fully the policies being pursued by the Government in line with their White Paper on Industrial Policy and the national plan. Such endorsement will allow the Government to get on with the task they are already fully committed to, of promoting further investment and creating the economic and financial conditions in which sustainable new employment can be created throughout the country and, indeed, for the Limerick area.
Well read.
Well done.
Last night I heard the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism try to defend what the Government had done in respect of this matter and I thought it was pretty feeble. I thought it could hardly be beaten for feebleness, but I heard something even feebler here tonight. What we have just heard is the most pathetic performance that I have ever heard from anybody. This beleaguered Minister of State stands up and reads out for 25 minutes what somebody has handed to him.
It was very interesting indeed to listen to him talk about how deeply concerned the Government are for Limerick and all that has happened in terms of industrial development in the past two and a half years. He lowered his voice when he got to that, as well he might. I did not catch the entire details. I missed one of the names that he mentioned. Unless you had the list in front of you, you could easily miss the names because what he is talking about are so small that you could be living in Limerick for a long time and not know that some of them were there.
The one industry of any significance was referred to as having been established in Limerick since 1982 — a company called El-Fab — which he says will ultimately have 300 jobs. It certainly has an awful lot less than that now and I do not know if it will ever see that day. All the others that he listed, with one exception, are small industries and are on an IDA list that was handed to him only because they happened to be promoted from abroad. If they were indigenous they would have been promoted in that region by the Shannon Development Company and would not be connected with the IDA.
So bereft was the Minister of something to say that he said that a lot of other firms are expanding, including Mayo Data. That firm have been in Limerick for the last ten years.
And have closed down quite a number of their branches.
This is one of the achievements of Deputies Bruton and Edward Collins, we are told. Minister Collins went on to read out figures and he should think of the consequences of some of the figures before he reads them out, but he probably did not have an opportunity to read his speech before he came into the House. He said that between 1980 and 1984 £85 million was committed to Limerick in industrial development. It was — the figure is correct. Now he should go back and find out when it was committed, because 95 per cent of the money — in fact, slightly over 95 per cent — was committed before October 1982.
Now.
The list of very minor undertakings that he is able to refer to since that date is proof of that. We have had many factory openings in Limerick in the last few years, I am glad to say. We have had very high powered Ministers coming down from Dublin. Indeed, we have had a local Minister who turns up when things are good. They arrive at these openings of which we have had many over the last few years. Without exception every single one of these undertakings was started by the Fianna Fáil Government. Every single one is an extension of plants that were put into that city and county while I was Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I have become fairly used over the last few years to going to these openings. It is almost getting to be a chore, especially when they are all expansions. There is not one single new one, except one which is a service industry, if I remember, called VIP, in the Plessey Technological Park. It does not manufacture anything. There was a terribly interesting photograph taken, Deputies might recall, of the Minister for Justice studying what was on show on that occasion. The photograph was widely published, much to the interest of many people afterwards. In his list of——
What was on show?
——the Plessey Technological Park, one of the great jewels in the Limerick crown — everything that was in it, incidentally started about five years ago — he mentioned the IIRS being present. It is. There are two people employed in it. It was proposed to move two sections of the IIRS, a new one and an existing one, to Limerick. The Fianna Fáil Government of two and a half to three years ago made that decision. It was stopped, as all other decentralisation was stopped, by this Government. The Minister of State was a little unhappy in his choice of some of the institutions that were there. There is a man and a typist and that is the extent of the IIRS presence in Limerick.
This premises into which this Hyster project was to go had been vacant for seven and a half years, so it was an absolute godsend to have it occupied. It is a difficult premises to fill because it was purpose built for a different purpose. The risks involved here, as has been made abundantly clear, exist, because risks exist in every industrial undertaking. However, I know of few where the element of risk is less than here. The effort of the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism to suggest that this was high risk is ridiculous. This company, Hyster, have a very modern high technology plant now in production in Blanchardstown — something entirely new. It was never tried, either by them or anybody else, before. It was very high risk, but the risk was taken.
The Deputy has three minutes to conclude.
The risk was taken in relation to that and it paid off — and it was a major risk. Hyster have a plant in Northern Ireland which, I am glad to say, is very successful. Again, this was a very risky venture because it was new and it was not known whether it would work or not. Here you have one of the most low risk projects ever to be offered to this country. The IDA did not turn it down, they were very glad to see it.
We have had such misleading figures given to us that they border on deliberate lies. You would never think that in this country the IDA by law are precluded from offering more than 45 per cent grant aid of the capital cost. Still the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism——
On a point of order——
——has sought to give the impression that——
One moment, Deputy, please.
Is the Deputy entitled to say that the Minister or the Minister of State has misled this House?
I said that last night.
The Deputy could damn well have.
He is perfectly right.
Would Deputy O'Malley withdraw the word "lie", at least?
For what reason?
I said that it was so misleading, that it approached a deliberate lie.
That is right.
And it does.
On a point of order, is the Deputy entitled to say that either the Minister or I misled the House?
Yes, I said that last night. He misled the House.
He tried to mislead the people.
Put out the document.
Deputy O'Malley has two minutes.
That is from a party that were in Government for four miserable years.
(Interruptions).
Please, Deputies. Allow Deputy O'Malley to continue.
(Interruptions.)
Please, Minister.
I do not wish to become involved in this argument. I really need more time. I have only had ten minutes in all.
Give us the facts.
It is again entirely misleading for the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice to seek to give the impression that because £1 million in equity is put up by this or any other company, that is the only risk at which the company stands. I have seen many projects established where no cash equity was put up. That is not uncommon and to have only £1 million put up in this instance is quite normal. I have checked this out with many people. In addition to the cash, which is only a small aspect, there is the question of leasing and parent company guarantees of bank loans which are regarded by the IDA and the banks as the same as equity, as they are. By putting across this story to give a false impression the Government are carrying on in a disgraceful fashion.
The capital grant does not take into account the value of the premises. The IDA were fortunate in their agreement with the Hyster Corporation to have Hyster take an option on the premises which would have resulted in the purchase of the premises by Hyster from the IDA at a very attractive sum. The IDA will find it very difficult to sell these premises at anything like their building cost.
(Limerick West): This Government have neglected totally the Limerick region, and their refusal in not allowing the Hyster Company to set up their industry in the city is a glaring example of this neglect. The Minister for Justice, the member of the Government representing Limerick, is to be condemned for his inactivity, particularly at the Cabinet table, and his subsequent silence is further evidence of his total disregard for the unemployed people of Limerick city. Idle rhetoric in other areas is no substitute for positive action in the creation of jobs and the encouragement to industrialists to invest in this country.
The absence of Deputy Prendergast, Mayor of Limerick, is a further indication of the support his party give to industry in the city.
Another case of reneging.
(Limerick West): I condemn the Deputy for his absence from this debate last night and also this evening.
When the Government decided not to back the IDA on the siting of the De Lorean plant in Limerick there was a great deal of justification for it. The amounts involved were enormous and there was no guarantee that the project would ever get off the ground. As it turned out, that decision was sound and prudent. We all know how the British Government invested in De Lorean's pipedream and the price they paid for it.
There was a huge risk element in De Lorean but there was virtually no risk with Hyster. The company are a reputable and long-established one, manufacturing a top quality product. Their reasons for siting in Europe were sound business reasons and the money involved, in relation to the jobs to be provided, could hardly be regarded as excessive.
The Government's penny-pinching demand for an extra £1 million investment by Hyster before committing IDA investment money in the proposed Limerick project was an insult to the American promoters, and it is not surprising that they chose to locate elsewhere. The Minister for Finance and the other Ministers, already gravely embarraised by their blatant failure to reach their own economic targets, treated Hyster as another De Lorean, and Limerick must pay the price for their misguided decision.
The irony is, as the leader of this party, Deputy Haughey has pointed out, that the decision, which was supposed to save the country £1 million, will actually cost us at least £5 million. Without Hyster there will be 800 people still on the dole queue in Limerick city costing the taxpayer £5 million a year in unemployment payments.
The same kind of penny-pinching attitude revealed itself in the recent announcement by the Minister for Energy regarding oil exploration. Rather than make it attractive for the major oil companies to invest in oil exploration in our seas, he has set us at a disadvantage vis-á-vis other potential oil producing nations who make it worth while to invest in exploration. Nobody will thank the Government for leaving our natural resources in the sea. Let us draw in the exploration investment, bring the oil ashore and then let us talk about how much return the State receives from it.
Foreign investment in exploration, attracted by a favourable taxation climate, discovered our natural gas off Kinsale Head. That gas is now producing valuable royalties for the State while, at the same time, providing competitively-priced native energy for homes and industries along the route of the gas pipeline. What good would that gas be doing for Ireland if it were still lying at the bottom of the sea?
Ireland no longer has a monopoly on State-run industrial development boards, nor do we have an advantage from an incentive point of view. Other countries are now offering industrialists a deal that is as good as if not better than ours. In the circumstances, it does not make any sense to me that the Government should frighten away a genuine project like Hyster. The people of Limerick in particular will want an honest explanation from the Minister and his Government as to why 800 jobs have been lost and what he proposes to do to replace them.
The people of Limerick will also want an explanation as to why the Kinsale gas pipeline still has not come to the city, where the availability of natural gas could help generate jobs there. Fianna Fáil in Government had prepared plans for a Limerick spur on the pipeline but still there is no move on it. Must Limerick wait until Fianna Fáil return to office, for gas, for jobs and for a Government who really care for its welfare?
The decision of the Government not to support the project is a most unusual and indeed incredible one. This is at a time when there are few projects of this kind in the pipeline and it seems totally unbelievable that the Government should show such disregard for the unemployed. The Government have failed not only to create new employment opportunities but also to protect the jobs of hundreds of people in every area and particularly in the mid-west region. west region.
A few hundreds yards away from the Hyster project is the Burlington plant which closed recently with a loss of more than 400 jobs. Here we have people skilled for this kind of industry and who could have obtained jobs had the decision been made to go ahead with the Hyster project. The Government have shown a total lack of appreciation of the plight of the unemployed, a total lack of any knowledge of the present chaotic situation in every region in relation to employment.
There is another reason that this plant was essential to the region, that is that in the mid-west region now there is a very high dependence on the electronics industry. It is now recognised throughout the world that the electronics industry is in decline. Therefore there is an urgent necessity in the mid-west region to balance employment opportunities in this heavy engineering, manufacturing industry which would ensure that in the event of any serious downturn in the electronics industry in future years we will have a sound manufacturing base in the region I believe that is why the IDA were so enthusiastic about that project and in ensuring that we got that project into the region.
There is another reason we felt that project was essential and why we perceive a major loss because of its not being located there. It is well known that 800 jobs in manufacturing industry would create an additional 250 to 300 jobs in the servicing area. It has been recognised that we would have had 300 additional jobs in the servicing area, which would have had a knock-on effect, especially in small high technology industries developing in the region and which have been very successful in many areas. We are also aware that there would have been opportunities for storage, warehousing, freight handling, the transportation of goods and in traffic generally, which would have a knock-on effect right across the whole range of industry in this region which is in such a chaotic position at present. Its location there would have introduced many new skills, new machine-intensive skills, in engineering and dye-casting, important areas for job creation. It would also have afforded small industries an opportunity, through that major international company, to operate on the export market in a way they would never be able to do within the limits of their resources.
Therefore, there were a number of reasons the project was essential beyond the development of the economy of the mid-west region. There were between 300 and 400 people made redundant in Burlington, with no further employment opportunities for them. That project would have given an ideal opportunity to many of them already highly skilled, trained and unlikely to have any prospect of a job in that area in ensuing years.
The Government would appear to be trying to confuse the issue at this stage by throwing out what I believe to be fictitious figures about possible grant aid and its cost to the Exchequer. I challenge the Minister here, as he has been challenged on numerous occasions already, to put this proposal on the table so that we might see exactly what is involved, measuring for ourselves the implications for the taxpayer. I believe they would be very little because such grant allocation would cover capital costs, fixed assets, plant, machinery and buildings and the training of young employees, with such training grants being paid out only as the people were trained and in employment. The Minister is foolish if he thinks that, by hiking up figures here, he will create the impression that there was an inherent risk that could not be taken or guaranteed. That is totally inaccurate. There are many projects in the mid-west region, in every part of the country, where the costs per job have been far in excess of those in this venture.
The Deputy is dead right.
I challenge the Minister to put the various items that make up the grant for the project on the table so that we can see what is involved and measure exactly what has happened.
The Government's policy in the whole industrial area is now in total disarray. The IDA have been stabbed in the back, damaged, and are not now sure what Government policy will be for future industrial development, whether the Government will turn on its head every decision they take if it does not suit them. On the same day the IDA said that wealth must now be created if sustainable jobs are to be created and the Tánaiste appeared on television saying wealth must be taxed. Seven hundred million pounds left this economy into the black hole, sent away by the multinationals, that could be reinvested here. Successive Irish business people are now concentrating their investments in the United States, at a time when there is so much investment needed here and so many opportunities that could be exploited if we could attract and retain such investment.
There is now total confusion in relation to Government industrial development policy. It is no wonder that Hyster have now located in Holland. It is a disastrous state of affairs and one that the Government should never have allowed to happen.
The central issue of this debate taking place throughout the country is a matter of credibility.
And truth.
There has been enormous damage done by the Government to the morale and credibility of the Industrial Development Authority. The Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, deliberately or otherwise, misled the House and the people by insinuating that the Government were being asked to invest £14 million in the Hyster project with an investment of only £1 million by the company. That was misleading on the part of the Minister, the Government and the Taoiseach.
That is not in order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
It is my view that the Government considered this project totally unacceptable, a hare-brained scheme, which assumption on the part of the Government is bordering on the unparliamentary word I may not use but, in any language, it is an untruth and surely that is parliamentary enough to make it stick. Can anyone recall this ever occurring before in this country? I accept that the Minister gives final approval or otherwise to agreements made by the IDA, but in this case it has been shown conclusively that the Minister, the Government, the Cabinet and the Taoiseach, and possibly some of the national handlers, made an incorrect decision on this one. I mention all of them because of the many statements that emanated from all these elements of responsibility, but the bottom line is that the Limerick region has lost 800 very badly needed jobs in manufacturing industry and many hundreds of supporting jobs that would have been created had this plant been located in Limerick.
I might ask the Minister further: how many more such decisions have been taken of which we have not been made aware? We were fortunate in being able to highlight this situation, having been made aware of its background. It was against this background — that is, the IDA's effective absence of reply — that the Taoiseach said in Cork that he was a democrat and therefore did not object to the issue of a statement by the IDA. Would the Minister say when before did the IDA find it necessary to rebut statements by the Minister and the Government? These are facts we want related to the House and to the country at large. Of course the Taoiseach could not object because he realised that the statement made by the IDA was much closer to the facts than those outlined by him and his Ministers.
In an effort to cover up their disastrous error of judgment, to mislead the general public, the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, the Minister for Justice — who has been conspicuous by his absence over the last two evenings — and the Taoiseach issued a succession of statements in an effort to convince the taxpayer that they were being responsible in Government. I ask the House: could anything have been more irresponsible than that decision of the Government? But no amount of propaganda, however well presented by the handlers or anybody else, will distort the facts. As yet neither the Government, Ministers nor the Taoiseach have given the facts to the House and the country. The questions posed by us in the course of this debate have not been answered and the House should now be told the facts of the matter, or else the false allegation that the deal was a straight £14 million or £11 million proposition should be withdrawn. I do not know which figure is correct as the figure was stated differently in different statements. An apology should be issued to the IDA for the gross misrepresentation of their proposals.
The Taoiseach should also apologise for the gratuitous insult to Fianna Fáil in a statement which he issued on the same occasion in Cork. Is it not true that the Irish project was to supply an already proved market and that the project was lost to Holland at a higher price than Ireland was asked to pay for it in the first instance? We want those facts on the table. Is it not true that a sizeable number of the 117,000 people on unemployment assistance would have been employed in this project to manufacture component parts for the Hyster company to be distributed worldwide? The statement of the Minister that this was a high risk project is lacking in credibility. This is proved by the fact that the company were asked to contribute £1 million to enable the project to go ahead. Surely a contribution of £1 million would not lower the risk in a high risk project? Surely there is a credibility gap that must be bridged? This is the sort of double thinking and double talking that is totally unacceptable.
It is time the Government realised that maximum support should be given to industries where the greater number of jobs can be made available in an economic situation that can only be described as chaotic. The Minister of State in his contribution referred to the White Paper issued last year and he talked about the £750 million that has been put into industry. Yet in one fell swoop the Government does away with at least 800 jobs in manufacturing industry and many supporting jobs. Did the Minister approve of the Hyster project for Limerick? If he did, what happened in the meantime at the Cabinet table? We assert that the project was scuttled there and this has not been refuted by any statement from the Minister or the Taoiseach or the national handlers.
The Deputy has five minutes to conclude.
Surely the Minister must know that the volume of manufacturing industry dropped by 39 per cent in 1984. Surely the Minister is aware that over the last four years 28,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry. What happened in Cork some time ago is now happening in Limerick and it will continue to happen throughout the country while this Government are in power. Cork has suffered on many occasions and now we are decimating the mid-west as well. Is this an effort to dismantle the IDA to allow for the famous National Development Corporation about which we heard so much and for which we are still waiting? We have been promised the NDC for the past two and a half years.
The questions posed by us are not being answered. The Government should come clean and should not continue to attempt deception. Last night the Minister's edited, altered and less than complete contribution in the House was merely a further diversion from the truth. It is high time that the facts were made known, that the Minister's judgment was incorrect, that the decision will not save the taxpayer's money but will have the opposite effect. Both Fianna Fáil and the general public are awaiting the truth and we require it immediately.
I presume I can conclude the debate for the Opposition?
The debate is to conclude at 8.40 p.m. and then we are to have the Divisions.
I assume that I am the last speaker in the debate. This is an exceptionally important debate. The attitude of the Government to this debate is unbelievable in that time available to them for participation in this debate has not been taken up. There were no members of the Labour Party present to participate in this debate either this evening or yesterday evening and no member of the Fine Gael Party from the constituency of East Limerick this evening or yesterday evening to debate a matter which is so seriously important that we in this party felt obliged to put down a Private Member's Motion to discuss it.
Having listened to the contributions this evening of the junior Minister, Deputy Collins, and the Minister, Deputy Bruton, yesterday evening, I felt it was one of the weakest defences ever put forward by any Government in defence of a decision. If Mark Twain were here this evening he surely with deep conviction would say "there are lies, damned lies and statistics". The rejection by this Government of a major job creating project is a bitter blow to the people of Limerick, especially the unemployed people in that city, but the implications of this bad decision are deeper than just that. The real message coming from this debate tonight is that it puts into clear focus the startling fact that this Government in their policies put their book-keeping monetarism before jobs. Jobs do not count, obviously. It is Government policy not to invest in productive enterprises which produce jobs. Because of the handlers, the national handlers in Dublin and the local handlers in Limerick to which Deputy O'Dea referred, and the monetarist economists, it is no wonder that we are here tonight debating a decision made by them and rubber stamped by the Government. Is it not they who make the decisions? Deputy Reynolds suggested here last evening — and is it not a fact — that the sequence of events is as follows: that the Government appointed an economist by profession based in Trinity College, who is now on the board of the IDA, who did his damnedest to stop the IDA from approving this project and when he did not get his way, when those sensible people in the IDA with a proper economic outlook and feeling for the unemployed, who know what a good investment project is when they see it——
On a point of order——
(Interruptions.)
——is it in order to castigate people who have been clearly identified and who cannot defend themselves in this House?
They are not being castigated.
The remarks are not in keeping with the highest standards of this House.
(Interruptions.)
That party would not be used to high standards.
I interrupted nobody. I was present here for two nights listening to everything that was said.
On a point of order, I was in Cork last night at the annual conference——
(Interruptions.)
I asked to be allowed to contribute to this debate and I was advised by the Whips' office that I would be allowed five minutes to speak. I came here at 8.18 p.m. and now I will not be allowed to speak as Mayor of Limerick.
On a point of explanation, at 8.18 p.m. the Deputy was not in the House and he was down to speak at 8.20 p.m. When Deputy Lyons sat down Deputy G. Collins stood up. I have no control over the rest of the proceedings.
I have no wish to interrupt Deputy Collins.
That is what the Deputy is doing, and three minutes of my time have been wasted on points that were not points of order. I wish to place that on the record. This economist, a Taoiseach appointee to the board of the IDA, when overruled by the other members of the board came by the back door to the Taoiseach and got working on him and insisted that this project would be vetoed at the Government table. This is how it happened. I say to those who feel that perhaps I am criticising some of these economists, these handlers, rather sharply this evening, that if they take on the role of handlers for the Government they will be identified as such and they will have to stand over their actions from now on.
Deputies opposite were never used to high standards in this House. Their behaviour lowers the dignity of the House.
I ask for the courtesy from the Minister of State which I extended to him. During the course of this debate yesterday evening, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, did not give the facts to this House. We did not get the truth from him last evening, nor did we get it this evening from the Minister of State, Deputy Collins. The IDA tell us in their statement about the project, the first statement ever that I have seen from the IDA, that they were satisfied that the package recommended to the Government was the best deal which could be negotiated with the company, that it represented good value for money and that the project as negotiated was soundly based. This is the IDA laying it on the line for the first time, contradicting the Taoiseach and the Minister. Yet the Minister of State and others say that the Taoiseach, in the course of an interview in Cork the weekend before last, said that he believed in democracy, that the IDA were entitled to make a statement. On the other hand the Minister for Justice, Deputy Noonan, who is not in this Chamber this evening, who was not here last evening but who is in the precincts, and I have no doubt is listening to us on the intercom, the same evening at 11 p.m. on a television programme from Cork said that he felt that this was an outrageous document issued by the IDA, implying by so saying that they were not entitled to do it, that they too should fall in line with what the handlers were handing out that night.
This evening the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, quoted very selectively from the IDA document. He quoted the last sentence of the statement when he said that the authority admit that they recognise fully the Government's right to accept IDA recommendations on major projects. We also recognise that. That was never in question, but the Minister of State did not deny what the IDA said with regard to the viability of the project which they had recommended to the Government for approval and sanction. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, last evening told us what Mr. Kilkenny of Hyster said. Tonight the Minister of State read into the record a statement made by Mr. Kilkenny, but again it was such a selective statement that I will, for the record and for the sake of clarification and guidance for the public at large, read from The Irish Times of 20 May. Mr. Kilkenny had told The Irish Times the previous day that the spare parts project was not high risk as had been suggested by the Minister. Mr. Kilkenny is saying that the Minister is not telling the truth when he says that, and to suggest, as the Minister did, that it marked a new departure for Hyster was untrue. Again this is Mr. Kilkenny telling us that what we had from the Minister is untrue, and the Minister did not deny that last evening, neither did the Minister of State deny it tonight. Mr. Kilkenny went on to say that the company saw the total project of providing spare parts of competitors' equipment as being in two phases: establishing a presence in the market place through buying in components and selling through dealers in the US and Europe. Again this is in total contradiction of what was said by the Minister and must be placed on the record as another untruth. Mr. Kilkenny went on to say that his company were active and had been profitable for some time, that the lower risk second phase manufacturing of the components was what had been offered to Ireland and was rejected. He said that they would not be going into the project if they thought it risky. Yet the Government and their handlers at every opportunity try to denigrate the project and imply that Mr. Kilkenny and Hyster are not going to succeed, that it is high risk. That is what the Government say in the many statements issuing from them. On the other hand, if they could have screwed another £1 million out of Hyster they were going to forget that it was a high risk project and they were going to take it.
What is the value of the high risk? The Minister and the Minister of State both were asked from this side of the House to put the facts up before us and the people for examination, but we did not get those facts. We have asked so many questions. We have asked the average price per job. We did not get the cost of creating each of these jobs with Hyster in the old Ferenka building in Limerick. We have estimated that the cost would be £14,000 per job, and this is well in line with the average cost of job creation coming from the IDA at present. This is fact, and if the Minister of State does not know it he should consult with somebody who does. He could consult with a Deputy from Wicklow and compare the cost of the Hyster jobs with the cost of jobs recently announced in Wicklow, in Greystones, which was working out at £30,000 per job. The Government failed to come clean and give us the information that we are entitled to. A bad political decision was made by the Taoiseach seemingly off the top of his head to satisfy the whims of his appointee, the economist from Trinity College, to the board of the Industrial Development Authority.
This decision was not based on sound economic and financial considerations. It was a political decision which we will rue for a long time. The blame was put on the IDA but they defended themselves, and rightly so. Blaming the IDA was a major blow which will affect the success of their operations. It was a blow to the confidentiality which they always maintained in dealing with people who wanted to establish an industrial project here. That confidentiality is now blown with the wind.
People who want to make inquiries about the possibility of setting up an industry in this country will be fearful that political considerations will count rather than the economic or financial feasibility of a project. They will wonder whether some handler has the private ear of the Taoiseach behind the door. There was an all Government membership agreement to veto a worth-while project which would have given employment to 800 people in a region where employment is badly needed.
The Minister of State, Deputy Collins, quoted figures sotto voce here this evening. With difficulty we heard one or two of them. He talked about investment in the Limerick region and about jobs created there. Deputy O'Malley scotched much of what the Minister of State said. The £85 million he said was invested in the area created far fewer jobs than the extra £1 million in the Hyster deal would have created. We would have had more jobs for that £1 million. That must be understood clearly.
We have heard a number of misleading statements. There were massive efforts by the handlers to confuse the issue. When the chief handler, the Press secretary, was asked by Press correspondents for a comment on this issue he said: "That is old news. That decision was made months ago. There is no story in that". If Deputies doubt me they should ask the political correspondents. That is the answer the chief handler gave to them. I will go further and say that a campaign of vilification was carried out against Deputy O'Dea in Limerick by the local handlers over the weekend. These people went to the journalists in the local media and tried to take away politically and personally from Deputy O'Dea because he broke the story in the Limerick Leader. I gather that the handlers are to be well rewarded with public appointments in the near future. The chief handler failed, because the truth will out. Their efforts to conceal the facts from the people have not succeeded.
Deputy Prendergast was late in arriving here tonight. If I did not know him better I would say he timed it well. He need not have rushed back from Cork. He could have got his Cabinet colleague from the same constituency to tell us why he agreed with the Government's decision that Hyster was to be hoisted out of the constituency they were elected to represent. I saw the Minister of State in the House yesterday. I did not know where Deputy Prendergast was. I presume he was trying to win back his seat on the corporation. Good luck to him. I hope the people will forgive him for his absence. Both Deputy Prendergast and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, were elected to represent the people here in this Parliament, and not in Cork, or in their rooms listening to the debate on the intercoms, when an issue affecting employment opportunities for over 800 people is being discussed in this Chamber in time generously given for the discussion by members of this party because the Government failed to give time for it. I understand Deputy O'Donnell is in Europe. If he were here tonight he would be beside me standing up for the people who are unemployed in the city of Limerick and condemning the Government for the decision they took.
Last evening speakers from this side of the House gave the facts and the figures. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, spoke after Deputy Reynolds and did not challenge any of the figures mentioned by Deputy Reynolds. The Minister of State had a figure of his own this evening and obviously, with no disrespect to him on a personal basis, he did not understand it. He confused himself while trying to read from a not very well prepared script. He confused Members of the House as well. I challenge the Government to put the facts on the table so that we can see them. Let us know exactly what they based their decision on and why they made that decision. Was it made on economic and financial grounds rather than political grounds as I have suggested? It was an extremely bad decision. It will shatter the confidence of the IDA. It will do terrific damage to the morale of the IDA. I do not have to speak to anybody in the IDA to know that. Michael Killeen said it all, a man above and beyond reproach, a man who was never a handler for anybody, a man who can stand on his own two feet at any time.
There was a smart effort last night by the Minister, Deputy Bruton, to wrong foot Members of the House and suggest that we were criticising the IDA. We are not. We are defending the IDA. We have always defended the IDA and we will continue to defend them. Many proposals were made when we were in Government. I remember the De Lorean project. We rejected it for very good reasons, and the time has proved that we were right. We were not in there in the tangling stage trying to squeeze out the last ounce. We saw that it was a project which would not succeed. The Government rejected it.
Deputy O'Malley did that.
The Government did it.
We want to see the draft agreement between the IDA and Hyster on the table. People who are quoting Mr. Kilkenny of Hyster or the IDA selectively should quote them in full. They have done serious damage to their case this evening by trying to give a false impression. We consider this one of the most important debates ever in the House. It affects 800 people. This is the biggest issue to be debated on behalf of the people of Limerick for a long time. I regret that Deputy Prendergast was not here yesterday, because I would love to know whether he too defends the Government's decision to reject Hyster. If he defends that decision he will have to vote against us here tonight. If he thinks we are right he should come through the lobby with us. He should be a man or a mouse.
At least he was man enough to come into the House, even if he came late. He is a better man than his colleague from the same constituency who did not have the moral courage to participate in this debate. When he got a soft run in a television interview on the night of the Fine Gael Ard Fheis contemptuously and callously he condemned the IDA document, the document of truth, as an outrageous document because it pegged his political ear to the back of his head for the first time. I invite Deputy Prendergast to vote with us tonight. I invite the Minister, Deputy Noonan, to vote with us tonight. I invite people from the Limerick Leader who are here tonight to note carefully how they vote.
(Interruptions.)
I congratulate the newspapermen on publishing the truth and standing up to the intimidation and the pressures put on them. I congratulate them for standing up to the abuse that has been levelled against them privately and publicly. Irrespective of the best efforts made the truth has come out, and the people of Limerick will remember the Coalition Government.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
Can I say something?
No, the debate has concluded.
This is outrageous. I was told by the Whip to be here at 8.25. I came here and I was not allowed to speak on an issue affecting my constituency. I want to protest at that.
Deputy Prendergast must resume his seat.
(Interruptions.)
Where was Deputy Collins when Castlemahon was being debated?
If the Deputy does not resume his seat he will leave the House.
I want to protest in the strongest possible manner. I was here at 8.25 p.m. and I was refused permission to speak.
The Deputy will leave the House.
I protest in the strongest possible manner.
The Deputy must leave the House.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
Where was Deputy Collins when they closed Castlemahon? He ran away from the issue.
(Interruptions.)
I am exercising my power.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.