Vol. 372 No. 12
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if Government approval was sought for the new NÉT-ICI joint venture; if so, when approval was given; the finance which was put up by NÉT and ICI respectively; if job losses are likely to arise as a result of the link up; the talks, if any, he has had with NÉT regarding the future of its Arklow plant; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
37.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has satisfied himself that there will be no reduction in craft maintenance and clerical workers at NÉT-ICI as a result of the NÉT-ICI joint venture; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 37 together.
On 14 January 1987, the then Government approved, subject to certain conditions, the NÉT-ICI joint venture which has not required financial investment by either NÉT or ICI.
While job losses are not expected to arise as a result of the joint venture, which, incidentally, will provide the best means of securing employment in NÉT against the very difficult trading conditions now prevailing in the fertiliser industry, staff levels in the new company at any particular time will, of course, be a matter for the board of the company. NÉT, with whom the position of their two plants has been discussed, have no plans at the present time to discontinue their operations at Arklow.
I understood the Minister to say that there was no financial investment from ICI or NÉT. Therefore, could the Minister say on what basis ICI will get 49 per cent holding in NÉT without any financial input?
I understand that the agreement reached was that the plants at Arklow and in the North would be merged with the new company. I assure the Deputy that there will be no financial investment by either side after that.
Does that mean that NÉT handed over 49 per cent of their ownership of these investments without any financial input from ICI? What is the benefit to the State?
There are many benefits to the State in relation to the joint venture, including rationalisation in the market place. As the Deputy and the House are aware, there is serious overdumping of fertiliser all over the world because of the entry of Third World countries into its manufacture. The long term strategic objective of NÉT in the joint venture with ICI is to stabilise their future. The Government approve of the decision in this regard.
Why could there not be just a joint venture in marketing? In the approval which the Minister said was given at a Cabinet meeting on 14 January 1987, did conditions apply in relation to consultations with the staff who had made a submission prior to that? If so, does the Minister intend to comply with such conditions in regard to consultations with the workforce and the unions involved?
I am not aware of the conditions to which the Deputy referred. Industrial relations in this or any other company are a matter for management and unions. I have little doubt that the four worker directors who are members of the board of NET are fully aware of developments. I assume that they keep their members up to date with information.
Deputy Mac Giolla rose.
The Deputy has had a good innings on this question. I will allow a very brief supplementary.
Could the Minister give an assurance that worker directors will remain in the production company when the joint venture scheme has been arranged?
Whatever conditions were attached will be implemented in so far as I am concerned.
