Deputy Donal Carey was in possession. Minister of State, Deputy Daly.
Fóir Teoranta (Dissolution) Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
On a point of order, I am not certain whether the Minister is winding up the debate, and I would like clarification on that.
If any Deputy offers, the Minister may not conclude the debate.
I am offering. A number of Deputies have already spoken on this Bill.
Sorry, I want to be satisfied that the Minister was rising to conclude the debate.
As nobody had offered, I was prepared to wind up the debate. Deputy Carey was in possession but he is not in the House.
I did not expect Deputy Carey to pass the ball to another Clareman that quickly.
Not too quickly for Fine Gael.
In view of the events of last week in this House, we have to be very careful about these matters. The Bill before the House had been promised for some time. One can look at the matter from two points of view. First, we can look at it in the light that henceforth Fóir Teoranta had been used, at virtually every opportunity, to rescue various companies that were in difficulty. They performed a useful function in the sense that there was quite a number of very valid cases where a strong argument could be made for the rescue of the firms concerned.
Over a number of years, various firms were in a position to make a strong case on the basis of which they were able to get rescue aid and so forth. After a while the case became threadbare and it became the norm, rather than after careful examination, that every company they expected to be rescued regardless of the situation. That is where some difficulty arose in the past. Once it became relatively easy to obtain rescue aid through Fóir Teoranta — I am not saying this was always done but it certainly happened in a few cases — it would appear that after the assistance had been granted the difficulties still continued and the trend, if it was a downward trend, continued. That was unfortunate because it put an unnecessary strain on the resources of Fóir Teoranta, it put an unnecessary strain on the credibility of the activities of Fóir Teoranta and it also created alarm in the minds of taxpayers. I do not propose to go into the details of all the companies involved but I can think of one or two off the top of my head. Like every other politician in this House I am sure that I, on numerous occasions, made representations to Fóir Teoranta for rescue aid in respect of various companies.
One could draw a parallel with UK Governments in the sixties where in every single company where difficulties arose, a rescue package of one kind or another was proposed. What followed was not a rescue package as such but direct State intervention so that there was a spate of nationalisations; that being the continuation of the ultimate rescue. It was a policy that led to absolute disaster and it went on to such an extent that there was no possibility that any kind of credibility could be given to the things that happened. Unfortunately, the people were misled into believing that this type of ultimate rescue was for their own good when in actual fact it was not. We all know what happened the entire economy following nationalisation in the UK. There are lessons that we, in this country, can learn from the experience there.
In later years Fóir Teoranta took greater care to ensure that where rescues took place a complete overhaul of management and all other elements within the various companies was also undertaken. If we go back ten or 12 years that did not always happen. It created problems and plucked a certain number of chickens that eventually came home to roost in their new condition. As a lay person it seemed to me that it was relatively easy to draw up a plan whereby a rescue package could be mounted and that it could be done without sufficient draconian measures being taken within the company, first, to ensure that the trend in which the company in difficulty was going was changed and, second, that people in the marketplace dealing with that company would have confidence in it. Those are two vital elements that were not always evident when rescue packages were mounted.
We are now coming into a new situation which we will be left with following the enactment of this Bill in the future. We are in a free open market economy, not only here but in far eastern regions of Europe. That presents us with a whole new scenario. Perhaps we will require some balance in the manner in which we go about our business in the future. I would be one of the supporters of a free and open market economy. I accept that that is the way we must go forward now particularly with an expanded Europe, etc. A certain amount of machoism is beginning to develop which worries me slightly. This becomes evident at a time when the financial markets are stabilised and when there appears to be a certain amount of confidence, through the financial services, in the economy. At this stage, we have reached another juncture where the fittest shall survive syndrome is beginning to develop to a greater extent. In that situation, the pendulum is swinging to the other side — the complete opposite to what I was talking about earlier.
There are dangers in that as well. On the one hand it is important that companies who are in difficulty are made to recognise — both management and workforce — that measures have to be taken to stabilise the position and to bring about a situation where they can actually survive in the marketplace. One can go recklessly down that road to the extent that there may well be, over the next number of years, companies who find themselves in a temporary difficulty and who may be in a situation from which they can extricate themselves with some assistance. It may not be as easy to trade themselves out of that difficulty given the new circumstances which will prevail henceforth.
I know there are other Members who still wish to contribute to the Bill but I would like to say just a few words about an area with which the Bill does not deal. There are a number of regions throughout this country at present including my own constituency — one always tends to become parochial though I do not like doing so in a parliamentary debate — which have suffered greatly as a result of large industries trading into difficulty who, through no fault of their own but because of changing circumstances and so on, have become obsolete or whatever. The result is a vacuum in employment in investment terms in the areas concerned. I have great difficulty in determining exactly who or what body has responsibility for dealing with such problems. In the context of this Bill it might well have been of use if some provision had been made for creating a structure whereby an examination could be carried out of areas that had suffered greatly as a result of job losses or the folding up of companies which had got into difficulty and that an emergency reappraisal of those areas, or black spots, could be undertaken with a view to encouraging a greater input in terms of investment in order to provide for the future. This is not the responsibility of the Minister opposite but some of his colleagues have responsibility in this area. There is a correlation because we are talking about a rescue agency and we have to ponder on what the alternatives or the deficiencies may be.
When I went to Fóir Teoranta with a proposal in relation to a mushroom company they were able to tell me that a similar rescue package had been proposed for another operation in another part of the country, that they had not succeeded in saving the company and that to pursue that line would be to throw good money after bad.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
As I said, when I approached Fóir Teoranta about a firm in my constituency it was explained to me that to pursue that line would be to throw good money after bad. However, I have to say that the vacuum created through the loss of the firm concerned has not been filled in the intervening period in that there has been no worthwhile investment since. Indeed, had it not been for the enterprise of the employees of that firm nothing would have happened. They were enterprising enough to accept the responsibility and established a smaller operation.
In general, a very careful examination was needed to assess the number of jobs required in that area but nothing seems to have been done. Obviously, this is not the responsibility of Fóir Teoranta while the Industrial Development Authority have said that they have "plans". When the Minister of State's colleague is asked in the House what the Industrial Development Authority's plans are for such areas he responds that it is a matter for the Industrial Development Authority who have their own plans. While one may ask a series of questions on that subject one gets no further as no answers are given rather one is told that the Minister has no responsibility in the matter. In the final analysis this is very frustrating for a public representative.
For this reason it might be useful at this stage to give a new role to An Fóir Teoranta, to evaluate the impact the closure of a series of firms has on an area and the number of jobs that may be required in that area in the foreseeable future. Perhaps they could say what they think is the ideal resolution to the problems in that area. That may sound like a parochial resolution to a national problem but if we were to do this right throughout the country we might make some impact on the unemployment problem.
One would get the impression listening to the Government benches and to all those agencies who implement Government policy, that the country was never better off, that for the foreseeable future the economy will be vibrant and stable while confidence will be rampant. While that may well be true in certain quarters, the 50,000 or 60,000 people who left this country last year do not think that. If one travels on the tube in London one will meet some of them and they will ask how things are in Ireland, have things improved and if there is any possibility of getting a job. At that stage one has to be vague and say, "They say things are improving but there is no great indication that jobs are available". That is the kernel of the problem. If one goes to other European capitals and the United States the same questions will be asked.
In developing a new "machoism" in relation to jobs, competition and a free market we have been inclined to forget those people who get pushed to one side. We should not forget that for a number of years very large numbers of young people have had to leave this country and to seek employment elsewhere. I do not know whether we are entirely to blame. Maybe there are other factors; undoubtedly there have been external factors from time to time, but to a great extent we are inclined to accept the inevitability of emigration.
Young people now leaving school, students sitting for the leaving certificate this year, or perhaps leaving third level, have less and less confidence in the ability of the various agencies, whoever they may be, to provide them with jobs. The day is gone when they expect people to provide them with jobs and they feel the existing institutions are unable to provide them with opportunities to gain employment. By opportunities I mean the kind of opportunities to which this Bill refers, whether it be salvaging or creating new structures within a company in some difficulty, or rationalisation of an existing company, or whatever the case may be. Whether it be that, the setting up of new industries or whatever, there is a serious dearth of confidence on the part of young people in these institutions to meet their requirements. That is sad.
When you meet our young people abroad you find they are thinking in terms of a situation precisely as they left it and improving. What their generation do not realise is that a year earlier another generation left this country and the year previous to that another generation probably left. That is where a serious problem exists. We are now building up to a position similar to that which prevailed in the forties, fifties and early sixties when we exported our greatest asset, our people. That cannot continue.
I do not accept for one instant the scenario developed on that side of the House that we do not have the means of employing people and retaining them in employment and that it is inevitable that they leave. It is probably inevitable that some people of their own volition will go abroad to gain experience for themselves and their firms, and that is good, but the extent of involuntary emigration is startling. I do not think any other nation has the same drain in terms of its people, its most useful resource, as this country. Somebody suggested some time ago that voting rights be given to Irish emigrants abroad. That would be a great idea but I would be sorry to have to startle the Minister sitting opposite by suggesting to him that his constituency might have suddenly quadrupled. Some very serious thinking would have to be done before the Minister would get an opportunity to canvass his constituents in London, New York, Birmingham and Manchester and the European countries, Germany, Switzerland and everywhere else.
We have a serious problem. We should, in the context of developments taking place within the EC at present, be coming around to at least making some semblance of an attempt to provide employment for each generation as they come on stream in the future. To my mind, meaning no disrespect to the Minister sitting opposite, nothing is being done about that at present. It is just a matter of holding, shoring up, and does nothing to gain the confidence of young people. I am not making personal remarks or anything like that; it is just a fact of life and once you go outside the country and meet the young people you recognise that.
I suggest it might be a good thing as an alternative to Fóir Teoranta and in addition to what has already taken place through the IDA and other agencies, that a role be given to a body who would be able to analyse the impact and effect of large scale job losses and impending job losses in a region. It has been possible for a number of years to determine in advance, at least two or three years down the road, regions of the country that are likely to be affected in that fashion. Heretofore, a rescue was probably mounted when the first difficulty arose. Now a different situation prevails. If there had been identification of the problem at an early stage it might have been possible to put in place some structures which would ultimately avert total disaster in terms of employment in an area.
I am speaking in the light of experiences in my constituency. I do not want to name the areas or regions because that does no good, but it is possible at this moment in virtually every constituency to identify industries that are likely to be phased out, become obsolete, or need major rationalisation. Not nearly enough time and effort are put into examining those carefully now and putting in place some kind of structures that will provide alternatives before the unfortunate event occurs. We wait until the evil day dawns and then we all protest and stand up in this House and ask somebody to do something about it. We ask the Minister and the State to become involved. Heretofore we asked Fóir Teoranta to become involved, but it is too late at that stage and the malaise should have been identified and action taken long before that. We can ask questions about it, but if you really pursue the matter and examine what is happening in any region at present where jobs are likely to be scaled down or phased out and unemployment is likely to occur, you are told that the IDA have extensive plans. They are marketing this area abroad. That in itself is a contradiction, because the last place in the world you are going to market is an area or region that is having a downturn.
Therefore, there must be some alternative examination. Some role has to be determined or defined for some other agency, not necessarily a rescue agency such as Fóir Teoranta. It is simply an identification of the trend and suggestions and proposals as to how it might be dealt with well in advance. Then let the people who have the marketing techniques and wherewithal to sell those areas abroad — or at home for that matter — do so.
For a number of years too much emphasis has been placed initially on the creation of small type employment. It is important to rescue and protect small industries and those giving employment to small numbers of people but to my mind the most vital element of the whole structure is the big investment and the big employer. Other people may disagree with me but I make no apology for saying this because once the big investment is put in place there will automatically be a demand for smaller, cluster-type units, back up services and service industries in that area. We do not have to go too far to see the evidence of this. I do not want to over elaborate on this point — it is not really relevant to this Bill — but I want to repeat that we will be putting the cart before the horse if we do not get in the big industries first, which should be our aim in the future.
With regard to the dissolution of Fóir Teoranta, one must accept these things with a certain amount of the inevitable but I should like the Minister to recognise that this agency carried out a useful job in the past. This may not necessarily mean that the same job will have to be done in the future but there is certainly a role for some agency to carry out the job I have outlined. I am sure the Minister opposite recognises that there is a role for some agency in this regard. There are countless alternatives which can be considered but which are not considered until such time as companies have gone to the wall and areas have become blighted. Because such investors are suspicious about getting into these areas we are left with other serious problems to cope with.
I hope the points Deputies make in this House will at some stage percolate down to such an extent that somebody will decide to do something about them. The point I have made here today may not seem all that important to the Minister but from my experience it is very relevant and could be vital to the future economy of this country.
In discussing this Bill the Dáil finds itself in a rather enigmatic situation — we are debating the closure of Fóir Teoranta, the State rescue agency and whether they should be closed down when for all practical purposes, they have been closed down long since. This agency have been wound-down and discontinued for well over a year. Does it not strike you as strange, a Cheann Comhairle, that we are debating whether we should close down an agency which we have already closed down?
Many years ago the Oireachtas set up Fóir Teroanta, the State rescue agency, for a particular purpose and the decision to close down that agency could and should only be taken by the Oireachtas which set it up; it should not be closed down by way of a decision taken by a Minister acting off his own bat, which is what has happened here. What has happened, in effect, is that the Minister took a decision to close down Fóir Teoranta, and so indicated in February 1989 and has wound-down their operations since even though no law has been passed by the Oireachtas on winding-down the company or their operations. Therefore we are putting the cart before the horse.
This highlights the contempt in which the Minister and the Government hold this House. It also highlights that the executive arm of Government continue to arrogate too much power to themselves and continue to debase the role of Dáil Éireann in making vital decisions of Government which are appropriate to Dáil Éireann and not appropriate to a particular Minister. One might well argue that the Coalition Government command a majority in Dáil Éireann and it is only a formality for the Dáil to ratify ex post facto what the Minister did in February 1989 but as we know that is not a tenable proposition. It could well have been that between February 1989 and now the Minister would have no longer commanded the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann and he would have taken the irrevocable step of winding-down the operations of Fóir Teoranta and then found, by reason of a change in the political spectrum, or whatever that he was no longer in a position to carry through the legislation to ratify his ministerial precept.
This is a very dangerous kind of operation on which we should comment in this House. I want to point out to the Minister and the Government that the Constitution requires that where an organisation such as Fóir Teoranta are set up by an act of the Oireachtas they should not be wound-down and decisions taken on their future by ministerial decree, as it were, until such time as the legislation has passed through Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann and been signed by the President. I believe that is a fair proposition. I know it is not going to help the position of Fóir Teoranta but I want to clearly sound that note in the hope that it may have some effect in some future comparable case. I have great reservations about the concept of Fóir Teoranta being totally abandoned.
It may well be argued that in their day Fóir Teoarant were set up on too wide a basis, that they rescued some firms which should not have been rescued, that the extent of their remit was too wide or that they exercised their discretions on too wide a basis. I am not saying that any of those positions is true. That kind of proposition can be argued and debated but I have never seen any overall assessment, and I think I have read all the papers on Fóir Teoranta which are available, of their achievement or lack of achievement which takes all factors into account. I have seen figures which show that so many millions of pounds were paid out by Fóir Teoranta to keep industrial firms in operation and that certain percentages of those amounts were lost, were not recovered, and are not now recoverable, but I have never seen any assessment of the real net cost. In other words, I have not seen anywhere where it says that if Fóir Teoranta had not stepped in so many thousands of jobs would have been lost, thousands of people would have been added to the unemployment queue and would have had to be paid X pounds in social welfare payments from another arm of State, the Department of Social Welfare, and the goods and products which those people manufactured would not have been sold within the country or exported, thereby contributing to the funds in circulation and to activities in the economy and providing a spin-off benefit down the line. There are two sides to the equation and only one side is ever taken into account. No account is taken of the losses that the State would have had to incur if Fóir Teoarnta had not been doing their job.
How many millions of pounds would have been paid out in social welfare because of jobs lost? How many more people would have emigrated if they had been thrown on the scrap heap of the dole over the years? It is unfair to be over-critical and say that they were too extravagant in dispensing moneys without, at the same time, at least, trying to do an assessment of the other side of the equation and what the State saved as a result of the activities of Fóir Teoranta. Taking into account such factors as social welfare moneys, redundancy moneys, loss of goods produced and downstream spin-off in the economy, the losses in net terms would not be anything like the figures that are produced.
One has, however, to look at the present position and see what the Minister is doing by completely abolishing Fóir Teoranta. What he is doing in effect is throwing out the baby with the bath water. There always has been and always will be some role for a State rescue agency for industry, narrowly based. I do not say that it should be able to cast its net very wide and dispense large amounts of money to private enterprise as a lender of last resort. There must, however, be a role for a State rescue agency that cannot be filled in any other way.
In the course of the debate, various alternatives were put forward, and I want to look at one or two of them. It was suggested that there are plenty of funds available through the lending institutions. The banks and the financial institutions, however, like financial institutions anywhere, lend, by and large, to the people who do not need the money anyway. The banking institutions have not, on the whole, served the country well in providing risk capital, even capital for ventures that involve very slight risk. The idea that a firm in temporary difficulty would be able to secure from the banking institutions the funds to keep their heads above water on a short term basis should not even be suggested because the truth is that many firms, even those doing quite well and with quite a good backing, would have considerable difficulties in raising the necessary funds from the banks. The banks and the financial institutions like to have 100 per cent guarantees, top backing and so on. They lend money to the multinationals; they lend money, for the most part, to people who do not need their funds in the first place. So I do not think it is tenable to say that there will be adequate funds to meet the needs of small, indigenous Irish-owned firms that are in temporary difficulties from which they could recover if they were given the opportunity to get over short or medium term troubles.
The other alternative is the new examiners' procedure that is talked about in the context of the Companies Bill which, I understand, is a procedure under which a company in difficulty and under threat from its creditors will be able to make an application to the court to temporarily restrict creditors moving against it. That provision operates in company law in a number of countries, in the United States in particular, and it sounds like a very worthwhile provision in certain categories of cases. I am sure it will have a valuable role to play and will be very important. It will be narrowly based and will need a court order to put it in operation. That would be on the equity side of the court which is slow, expensive, difficult and needs a skilled team of lawyers, solicitors, junior counsel senior counsel, accountants, affidavits and so on. It would involve considerable expense, effort and use of resources by a small struggling company to gear itself up even to get into court to make the application. Courts, as one can understand and as is to be expected, do not dispense court orders just because they are asked for. Applications are examined in some detail to see whether it is right, proper and appropriate to grant them. Judges, particularly in the courts dealing with equity, scrutinise these things. They have regard not only to the interests of the company looking for the exemption order against being sued, but at the interests of creditors and the difficulties they may experience as a result of not being in a position to proceed against the company to recover the money owing to them. Whichever way one looks at it, it is by no means certain that orders under this new examiner position will be a great deal of help in a great many cases. I concede it will help in a few cases and to that extent I would welcome it, if and when it comes in.
Having said that, it will not meet the needs of the kind of companies that Fóir Teoranta catered for. What Fóir Teoranta were doing was different. It was much more practical and produced much more immediate results; most notably it preserved people's jobs and kept the factory wheels turning. That is the difference, and that needed an injection of funds. We can set up all the court examiners' procedures we like and it may hold up the creditors from suing, but one thing it will not do is provide an injection of one penny of funds into the company to keep the factory wheels turning and save people's jobs. That it most certainly will not do. To adduce the examiner notion as being of any major contribution or relevance and compare it to the kind of job that Fóir Teoranta did is to misunderstand the position entirely. The task that Fóir Teoranta did, as we know, was to get the company over a hump by providing an injection of capital funds to keep it in operation, not out of any spirit of largesse but to enable it to get over short-term difficulties.
The abolition of Fóir Teoranta will mean, in effect — and let us not put a tooth in it — that there will be no organisation, company, bank, examiner or anything else in existence to fill that gap and to meet the need. Fóir Teoranta were the only organisation in existence in this State who were ever specifically directed at that important need, to save jobs and preserve an Irish company. It was fulfilling a worthwhile role. I am not saying that the operations of Fóir Teoranta could not have been more modest, or scaled down or that the criteria they were using should have been more finely focused or that they should have been more critical in the examinations they carried out. Those matters could have been and should have been looked at but that cannot be done now, the Government abolished that body.
To say that Fóir Teoranta are not needed now in most cases is one thing but to sweep away that body and leave nothing in their place is an extravagance, a step that should not have been taken. That is why I say that the Minister is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Instead of fine tuning the organisation and leaving it in existence to deal with certain cases he has abolished it and abandoned a very valuable arm of State enterprise that could have preserved an appreciable number of jobs. Fóir Teoranta could play a very valuable role in our society at little or no net cost to the State if they were monitored with care and if we insisted on them taking care on how they dispersed their funds.
The idea was put abroad by the Minister that their operations had run down when compared with an early stage of their operations. I accept that their operations had reduced from their earlier levels of lending and so on but they had not run down to the point that the Minister was justified in abolishing them. In point of fact the level of demand on Fóir Teoranta was continuing although it was at a low level and had not climbed in recent times. That was referred to in the Fóir Teoranta annual report of 1988. The chairman of the board in that report noted that the overall level of approvals and disbursements was similar to that in 1987. He said that the continued reduction in the figure for provisions and write-offs was sustained.
In other words, the chairman said that while the figure for 1987 had been lower than previously, in 1988 there was no further reduction in the demand for the services of Fóir Teoranta. The Government's decision is regrettable when one takes into consideration the type of companies rescued by Fóir Teoranta. For the most part they were medium sized or, more likely, small manufacturing concerns. They had, for the most part, one thing in common, they were Irish companies and that should be borne in mind. In this era of European, Japanese and American companies setting up business in Ireland the pattern of Irish industry and services is becoming more foreign owned. I am talking about big concerns that have operations all over the globe but whose main objective is not to promote the interests of Ireland or create jobs here but generate profits. Those companies exercise enormous power. In fact, the power of some of them is greater than that of governments. The budgets of some of those companies exceed those of states, even some member states of the Community. The budgets of some of them are equal to our own budget.
Those companies would not have any need of the services of Fóir Teoranta. They would not call for assistance to keep them in operation and preserve jobs. They can call on billions of pounds from Zurich, Washington, London or Paris. They would not have any problems in raising funds. Small Irish firms on occasions may have problems and may need temporary assistance. I am referring to small firms employing about 50 people. Those companies may have been in operation for 30 or 40 years and had a permanent commitment to the country. The multi-nationals, using their capital intensive methods, do not provide thousands of jobs but the small labour intensive Irish based industries have soldiered on over the years and, in many cases, produced products that otherwise would have had to be imported.
Through no fault of such companies, through a sudden change in interest rates or an increase in the cost of raw materials they might be faced with an emergency. It should be remembered that I am referring to small firms that exist on a hand-to-mouth basis and whose return is just adequate to pay wages, PRSI payments and overheads. If such companies experience a shortfall in their cash flow they are in danger of being wound up. If given temporary assistance, a modest cash injection, such a company would be able to get over the hump and their financial log-jam would loosen up. Such a company may be waiting for payment for goods delivered and, given a relatively small injection of capital, would be able to stay afloat. Fóir Teoranta were established to deal with such temporary setbacks. We need Fóir Teoranta to protect such jobs. I do not like to hear any talk about how brilliant our economy is. Every job is precious and we cannot afford to throw away any jobs. For a relatively small outlay small companies could be kept afloat and many jobs preserved. The money advanced by Fóir Teoranta, or a similar agency, could be recovered within a short space of time.
The House should bear in mind that I am not talking about lame duck companies which have been on the slide for years. They are in a different category. I have not examined the details of the Fóir Teoranta accounts and I cannot say if that body invested money in such companies. It has been stated by others that some of their money went to companies with certain political connections but I do not intend to go down that road. Fóir Teoranta may have assisted companies that were on the slide for years in an effort to keep them in business for a few months.
That is a different kind of proposition. I do not say that Fóir Teoranta should be preserved to provide capital or funds for that kind of situation. I am not referring to a company who have been on the slide for years and whose turnover and graph of profits are ever downwards with no hope of reversing the trend. I am talking about a company who have got by for a long period and have made modest profits which covered the cost of their raw materials and wages. There must be many companies like that who suddenly have to cope with an emergency and a State rescue agency could help when all else fails. A company may have done well for decades but at some point may need an injection of a modest sum. Should we tell them that they have done a fine job and provided employment for 100 people for 40 years but that we cannot help them? Do not tell me that they can go to the examiner to stave off the creditors because that is not the kind of thing I am talking about. The examiner will not give them a grant or a loan which is necessary to keep the ship afloat. In any case, this category of company are probably at the upper limit of their bank overdraft and they would probably not be in a position to organise funds for legal costs. There is no legal aid available which would enable them to secure any help in that regard.
There was a reference to the fact that funds would be available through the BES scheme but that does not have any relevance to this situation. We are really saying that we do not value companies who have performed well but who run into trouble. We are quite happy to see such companies liquidated with a loss of jobs. The people who were employed will no longer be able to contribute to the economy and will be dependent on social welfare. As I said earlier, no calculations have been made as to what that would cost but it would not surprise me if money provided for a temporary loan would be less than paying former employees social welfare for an indefinite period.
I would have thought that it would have been possible to scale down the operation. Fóir Teoranta had been working in recent years on the basis that they would not make any further calls for funds from the Government. It is not as if they were a drain on the resources of the Exchequer, far from it. They had not made calls for additional public funds for some years and they could have continued in that vein doing a valuable job. The net result, inevitably, will be that because a State rescue agency will not exist when the Bill is passed hundreds of people will lose their jobs. We desperately need all the jobs we can create because we are not doing well in the industrial area as far as keeping our people in this country is concerned.
As Deputy Durkan said, 50,000 or 60,000 people are leaving our shores every year. Is that a measure of success? Is that what the Minister meant when he said on his Second Stage speech that business confidence has never been greater? The Minister should visit seaports and airports, talk to some of our people emigrating every month and ask them their opinion of business confidence in Ireland today. He would soon be given his answer. Our unemployment is at the highest percentage level in the EC and we also have the highest pro rata emigration rate, yet we are still perpetuating the myth that our economy is doing well. There is only one litmus test as to how well the economy is doing, the unemployment rate. If there is full employment we can look forward to the future with confidence. However, that is not the case. It is a petty measure to abolish an agency who have done such valuable work. I studied the Minister's speech and he did not make a convincing case for the abolition of Fóir Teoranta. Perhaps it could be a more narrowly based company but I cannot see the point of abolishing it. It is not as if Fóir Teoranta would have to get offices or recruit staff. What is all the fuss about? Why not preserve the jobs, even if the numbers were small, of companies who are in trouble? The Minister is letting Fóir Teoranta go to the wall even though they could be kept going at a minimal cost when one takes all factors, including social welfare payments, into account.
In the course of his introductory remarks on Second Stage the Minister for Finance had this to say, at column 1067 of 31 May 1990:
The best action which the Government can take in relation to the survival of firms is to contribute as much as possible to lowering the input costs of industry ...
That is a nice sentiment all right but, quite frankly, I do not think either the Minister or the Government are doing that. The facts bear out that the Minister is not doing as much as possible at all to lower the input costs of industry. Let us examine a couple of its aspects. First of all, our interest rates are outrageous, totally unacceptable; interest payments, the cost of capital for any firm trying to carry on business in Ireland today is a major burden. Our interest rates are ridiculously high. An inflation rate of 3 per cent to 4 per cent and an interest rate of 12 per cent, represents a real return of between 8 per cent and 9 per cent. That is just untenable and is an appalling burden to impose on industry large and small. The Minister's statement that he has done everything to provide low inputs to facilitate the needs of Irish industry is not borne out as far as interest rates are concerned.
What about electricity charges? It is well known that our electricity charges are, if not the highest, then among the highest, in Europe. The cost of electricity is a crucial factor in industry. The net cost of electricity is much less in actual net terms. But what does the Minister and the Government do when there is room to effect a reduction in electricity charges? They add on VAT charges to bring the price back to scratch. The Minister does that, on the one hand and, on the other, maintains he has done all he can to ensure that the input costs and charges to Irish industry are maintained at a minimum.
Our telecommunications charges are among the highest in Europe. Why does the Minister not bring those down? Why does he not restructure the finances there instead of engaging in these manipulations and concentrating on privatisation? Perhaps he thinks privatisation will bring down the costings, in which case he has an unpleasant surprise coming to him. Why does he not forget about privatisation and concentrate on doing what he maintains he has done, namely, ensuring that all aspects of costings to Irish industry are reduced so as to enable Irish industry to compete on more level terms with their competitors abroad? Freight charges are also extraordinarily high.
Therefore, I do not understand that kind of statement, that the best thing the Minister can do to help Irish industry is not preserve Fóir Teoranta to provide help in a limited number of cases but to reduce costings. The Minister had this to say also in the course of his introductory remarks on Second Stage, as reported at column 1068, volume 399, of the Official Report of 31 May 1990:
... the days of feather-bedding Irish industry are over.
All I can say in that regard is it depends which aspects of industry one examines. For example, there is an awful lot of feather-bedding going on in industry here today, not necessarily Irish industry. There is a 10 per cent corporation tax in operation, a nice little feather-bedding device. Everybody else pays considerably higher rates than that. Not alone did that rate obtain but the Minister went out of his way, in the last budget, to extend the period of operation of the 10 per cent corporation tax to the year 2010, while maintaining that the days of feather-bedding are over. That is a nice little feather-bedding to have — when one has one's 10 per cent corporation tax extended by guarantee up to the year 2010.
The section 84 loans remain, although admittedly somewhat constrained by the last budget, which was welcomed as far as it went. But, by and large, those section 84 loans remain, which means there is a lot of feather-bedding still available there. Then there is the whole array of other miscellaneous tax devices, incentives, grants, loans and all the rest available to large companies, most of them not Irish at all, who reap the benefit of this major feather-bedding exercise. I think something in the region of £100 million was provided in respect of these section 84 loans for the year. Therefore, what is all this comment about feather-bedding? There is plenty of feather-bedding available to the multi-nationals who come in here, provide a minimum of employment, expatriate their profits as quickly as they possibly can, giving no permanent commitment to Ireland. One could well contrast that with the kinds of companies for which Fóir Teoranta was designed — small Irish companies with their feet firmly planted in Irish soil, doing an Irish thing, albeit in a small way. It is those Irish companies the Minister decides to hit. It is not good enough, cannot and should not be accepted.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Nuair a labhair mé anseo an tseachtain seo caite, thit an Bille agus, de réir dealraimh, beidh deireadh leis an mBille anseo inniu freisin. Is dócha go bhfuil péarlaí agam; nílim ag caitheamh péarlaí leis na muca mar táim cinnte go bhfuil an-mheas ag na daoine eile ar an méid atá á rá agam, ach tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh duine éigin isteach, má tá éinne le teacht isteach, chun labhairt anseo inniu. Nuair a bhí mé ag éisteacht leis an díospóireacht seo an tseachtain seo caite rith seanfhocal——
I will call a quorum if Deputy Browne would like me to do so.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Níl gá leis fós. Rith seanfhocal Gaeilge liom, ní mar síltear bítear. Nuair a bhí an tAire Reynolds ag labhairt le linn na díospóireachta sin bhí scéal amháin aige faoi Fóir Teoranta, agus bhí scéal eile ar an taobh seo den Teach. Bhí cuid den fhírinne ag an Aire sa mhéid a dúirt sé ach bhí formhór na fírinne ag an taobh seo den Teach. Ach, os rud é go bhfuil Cláiríneach eile os mo chomhair anseo, is dócha go gcaithfidh mé bheith cairdiúil agus féaráilte freisin.
Having listened to the Second Stage debate I could not but think that, as a nation, we are experts always with the benefit of hindsight. Fóir Teoranta was the subject of much criticism on that occasion without having been given a fair crack of the whip.
It is only right that we recall what might be termed "the bad old days of the eighties". Certainly they were not good days for industry or the nation generally. We should not criticise Fóir Teoranta for having dished out money — or not as the case may be — but rather recall the circumstances obtaining at that time. For example, the present Taoiseach, in 1979, made a famous speech in which he outlined the state of the nation, emphasising how serious was the then economic position. Unfortunately he did not follow up those comments with appropriate action.
We should recall that, when Deputy Garret FitzGerald assumed office in 1982, inflation was running at over 20 per cent. I have said before that any Taoiseach or Government who assumed office with that kind of inflation deserved a gold medal. In fairness to them it should be remembered that they had to deal with what could be loosely termed a banana republic. If I recall correctly, bank charges then stood at 17 per cent. Therefore our economy was in an unprecedentedly bad state.
I hear the present Ministers gloating over the fact that the Government have got inflation under control. In fairness, there must be a limit to what Governments can claim credit for. They can be forgetful and fail to give credit to those Ministers who slogged long and hard to get inflation under control. By the time Deputy FitzGerald's Government left office, inflation was down from 20 per cent to 4 per cent. That first Coalition Government deserve credit for bringing inflation under control. The present Minister for Finance is not being fair when he claims credit for getting inflation under control. He is claiming credit for something for which he cannot legally claim credit and he is ignoring the contribution made by the Coalition Government of 1982-87.
Bank charges are still very high and appear too high for the present state of the economy. Interest charges of 17 per cent in the years 1982-87 meant that companies were always in trouble. Companies found it impossible to deal with their loans and as a result many of them got into difficulties during the world recession. Unless companies were efficient and producing very marketable goods they had difficulty making their VAT and PAYE payments. This was a time of great difficulty for companies.
I was in the Seanad at that time and when a company got into trouble every politician in the place started shouting about it right away. Public meetings were held — and I have to say I attended some of them — at which the great economic experts down on the floor of the hall, who would not understand the economics they were talking about, were shouting slogans and directing flak at the Government. This was a good ruse at the time. There was always "aggro" that things should be done. I would say this would be still happening if companies giving employment to people, be it 50, 200 or 500 people were getting into difficulties; every politician worth his or her salt would be trying to rescue the company.
This was a natural enough reaction. Pressure was being put on the Minister to put pressure on Fóir Teoranta to help these companies. The directors of Fóir Teoranta have been criticised for their political allegiance at one stage but I think we should give them credit because they had to make decisions on the spur of the moment for the companies they had to deal with. They could not do any more than that. The politicians on all sides of the House who were pressuring them to make decisions were concerned only with saving jobs in their constituency. There is nothing as sad as seeing a big factory closing down and people becoming unemployed with all the consequent results of that.
In the course of the debate the last day, some Members said that Fóir Teoranta was regarded as a milk cow and the insinuation was that it was being milked by companies. If one considers that £75 million in current terms was written off, one could probably refer to it as "mad cow". That was a great deal of money to write off. However, I do not blame Fóir Teoranta. Fóir Teoranta were under a great deal of pressure and there was always a chance that if they came to the assistance of a company, the company would struggle out of their difficulties and manage to maintain employment in the company.
One of the great difficulties was that Fóir Teoranta were always called in when the corpse was almost in the coffin. They had to deal with a company which had almost gone beyond the point of no return. If proper economic sense prevailed and political pressure was not being applied from all sides, perhaps Fóir Teoranta could have stood back and examined whether the company had a chance of recovering. Unfortunately, Fóir Teoranta had to help companies which were under bad management and had too many debts which they were unable to repay. In 1982 Fóir Teoranta came to the assistance of 84 companies; in 1983 they assisted 94 companies; then the figures began to come down and in 1988 they assisted 46 companies. These figures as they stand do not convey any message and one could conclude that the fall in the number of companies which Fóir Teoranta had to assist meant that all the wee companies had gone out of business, but this was still a large number when one considers that there was a lift in the economy.
The Minister certainly suggested that companies would not be in difficulty in the future because of the upturn in the economy. We are now facing into 1992 and from what I can gather it seems to be a cause of more worry rather than bringing us advantages and perhaps will have to avail of the Industrial Credit Corporation more than we expect. The last speaker quoted the Minister as saying that Irish industry must be able to compete in the marketplace. I would agree with that because we have gone beyond the stage where we can subsidise every company in difficulty and subsidise every form of product. If the economic upturn continues and we can produce the goods that are in demand in the marketplace, perhaps Irish industry will be able to compete in the market, but I would not for one minute suggest that we can abolish Fóir Teoranta on the basis that companies will not get into difficulties. I would wish that they would not, but I think it is too much of a dream to expect that everything will go well. We will be competing against the big guns on what would appear to be a level playing pitch, but which may be slanted as far as we are concerned.
In the course of his speech the Minister outlined four reasons why Fóir Teoranta were no longer needed. The first reason was interest rates but, as our finance spokesperson, Deputy Noonan said, interest rates have gone up 4 per cent since the Minister made that statement. Perhaps they are now on their way down; we hope they will come down. Members have said that companies availing of the BES scheme were not investing in the risk area. I have never had any money to invest and I do not think I will have any problem in future either, because I will have less to invest, but I have a great deal of sympathy for people who have money to invest. Even if they get a tax credit for taking a risk, I do not blame them for investing in companies that will survive. Would it not be a reflection on their business ability if they were backing companies that were going to fail?
We can always be very generous with other people's money and we would love to see people investing their money in companies that we would not dream of investing in ourselves. If I had money, I would be as wise as everybody else and I would try to invest it in a way that would be of benefit to the people who worked for me. However, there is no advantage in investing in a company that has not any great prospects. I think we have to use our commonsense and if we want to encourage people to invest through tax concessions, I do not think we should ask them to see their money going into something that will flop.
This Bill is a form of retrospective legislation. Fóir Teoranta were officially abolished in February 1989, a year and a half ago and ICC are to take over the portfolio of loans and investments. I have been reading about the role of the examiner in the United States and there are different views as to what the examiner's role here will be. Somebody said it would be inoperable in Ireland but perhaps that is a criticism that will not stand up. It would be nice if the examiner's role under the ICC Charter would allow him or her to go into a company and help save the company paying off certain debts.
In the past, for example, the banks were inclined to move in far too quickly and sometimes pull the rug completely from under business firms, as I know only too well from my own county. If section 11 does nothing else except put a stay on banks and lending institutions who are trigger-happy at times because they see certain dangers, or who at times might even be liable to be charged with sharp practice for the way they handle the money of some companies, it will serve some purpose.
Finally, I want to refer to the staff. The Minister said that many of them have been allocated positions. We had the awful spectacle in 1987 where excellent people who were carrying out surveys on the land of Ireland for land tax and were bringing up to date valuations that were 100 years old, were laid off by the incoming Government. Even if that work is taken up again in the future, what those people did would not be regarded as being comparable with the new system. At that time those who had been employed as land surveyors and assessors were given no work. They were in offices doing nothing, through no fault of their own and much to their regret. Obviously the Fóir Teoranta staff will be in much the same position. The Minister said that many of them have been transferred to other duties but some are probably still doing work that is unnecessary. These situations should not arise.
We are talking about Fóir Teoranta coming to the rescue of companies, and it is a bit ironic that Fóir Teoranta staff are being paid to do work that is of no benefit to the State. I know work will be found for them but it is only a question of trying to fit them in. Perhaps the abolition of Fóir Teoranta has come slightly ahead of its time and, to a certain extent, the cart has been put before the horse. My wish is that the staff of Fóir Teoranta will be looked after and will not feel embarrassed, like some people I know who were trying to dodge into offices, knowing they had nothing to do, but at the same time they had to report for work. That is humiliating to genuine workers.
Last week when I finished my contribution on the Broadcasting Bill, I did not realise there was no other Opposition Deputy here. I am now about to sit down and if somebody does not come in quickly, this Bill will also come to a halt.
The Deputy is on his own again today.
Nobody has come in, but the Minister is here and I call on him now to conclude.
First, I express my thanks to the Deputies who have contributed to the debate — I was here for most of the debate on the last occasion also. By and large, apart from some minor hiccups, the contributions were constructive and positive. Certainly the views that have been expressed will be taken into account and borne in mind by the Minister. Deputy Browne drew attention to the fact that he attended many meetings in his constituency where rescue packages were put together. I had a similar experience. It was almost frustrating for a public representative — I am speaking in a personal capacity here — to have to deal with the multiplicity of agencies involved when companies experienced difficulties. Sometimes it was very difficult to find solutions at these meetings.
In the mid-west, at that stage the IDA, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Fóir Teoranta, county development teams, financial institutions and other interested parties were involved in these matters, each seeking a nudge from the other. Thankfully the position has been improved in that region and now the Shannon Free Airport Development Company deal with most industries, to the exclusion of the IDA, Bord Fáilte, Shannonside Tourism and the county development teams. There is now some sanity there in comparison to the position a few years ago. I believe this whole matter was very firmly taken into account when the Government made the decision to wind up Fóir Teoranta.
I will refer very briefly to Deputy Taylor's comments. He said we are implementing legislation to wind up Fóir Teoranta as a result of a decision made by the Minister for Finance off the top of his head a year or two ago, but that is not the case. The Government made a decision to wind up Fóir Teoranta and that will be put into effect by this legislation. The same procedure was adopted in 1972 when Fóir Teoranta were established. The decision was made by the Government and the legislation was then put in place. On several occasions since, leave of the House was sought to increase the borrowing powers of Fóir Teoranta, and the Deputies had an opportunity to contribute to the discussion on the activities of the company. I agree that Fóir Teoranta contributed greatly to manufacturing industry during the transition to full, open trading conditions, but that transition has been completed and the company have out-lived their original purpose.
I will refer to the overall economic environment and the background against which the Government decision was made to wind up Fóir Teoranta in February 1989. The budget of that year had, as its underlying objective, the promotion of sound, economic activity and sustainable employment throughout the economy. Manufacturing employment had begun to recover following a long period of decline. Provisional figures for the year ending December 1989 showed that total employment in manufacturing industry rose by 4,900 over the previous year. They are also reflected in the falling level of unemployment. In the year to the end of May 1990, the live register figures were down by 13,300. These are the welcome results of the Government's sound and responsible economic and financial management. Deputy Noonan said that the reasons given by the Minister in the House for winding up Fóir Teoranta are no longer valid and that this Bill should be withdrawn, in other words that Fóir Teoranta should not be abolished, but I do not accept that.
In April 1989 the decision to wind up Fóir Teoranta was made and was based on four main points. The first was the low level of demand for Fóir Teoranta services. In the years leading up to 1989 the amount of funds disbursed, the number of applications received, cases approved and the average size of approved cases fell sharply. Secondly, the industrial environment had changed very much as compared with 1972 when Fóir Teoranta were originally set up. The Minister dealt with this matter in his opening speech.
As regards the environment cost, this is largely determined by the general rate of inflation and the cost of funds, that is the interest rates. The rate of inflation was 3.3 per cent when the Government made the decision to wind up Fóir Teoranta. It was 4 per cent on average for 1989 as a whole. The forecast in the Budget Statement for 1990 is 3.1 per cent, below the level which prevailed in early 1989. The likelihood is that the Irish inflation rate in 1990 will yet again be below the average for the European Community, where average inflation this year is expected to be about 5 per cent. The recent easing in interest rates is also a welcome development, and our rates are still considerably below the comparable UK interest rates. The considerably higher inflation rates, and indeed higher wage rates, in the United Kingdom will certainly improve our competitiveness. Irish firms, compared with their UK counterparts both in the domestic and overseas markets, have a distinct advantage. The third point is in relation to beneficial effects of the examiner provisions of the Companies (No. 2), Bill, 1987, and this was raised by many Deputies. The fourth point is the necessity to prepare Irish industry for the more competitive regimes which will apply when the internal markets are in place after 1992. We are now in an environment much more conducive to getting industry back on its feet and achieving increased long-term employment. The best action the Government can take in relation to the survival of firms is to contribute as much as possible to lowering the input costs of industry rather than giving them handouts when it is probably too late to save them.
Deputy Rabbitte in his contribution felt there was an analogy between the circumstances at the time Fóir Teoranta was set up and now in the run up to 1992. We do not see that to the extent that would warrant the State being actively involved in industrial rescue as it was in the past. As the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks, that day is over. Since Fóir Teoranta was closed for new business virtually no industrial firm or representative bodies of industry have complained or sought to have the Government's decision in that regard reversed. Both Deputy Noonan and Deputy Rabbitte referred to the number of jobs saved as a result of Fóir Teoranta's operations. Undoubtedly jobs were saved but they were saved at a very high cost to the taxpayer. Not all jobs were saved permanently. Many of us had the experience of jobs being rescued and within a very short time the firms were in difficulty again and eventually those jobs were lost. It is very difficult to put a precise figure on the number of jobs that were saved and those that were not saved.
Deputy Noonan alleged that the business expansion scheme funding for the manufacturing sector had become virtually non-existent since the inclusion of export tourism in the scheme. I can assure the Deputy this is not so. In the tax year 1989-90 manufacturing accounted for over £20 million or some 30 per cent of all BES investment notified to the Revenue Commissioners. These figures speak for themselves.
The point was made that Fóir Teoranta acted prudently in the discharge of their functions and were not an easy touch for a loan. I agree with that. It is easy to say that on occasion good money was thrown after bad because in the event firms failed to recover and, in fact, went to the wall. It is easy to be wise after the event. The severity and the length of the recession in the early and mid-eighties caused a great shake-out of long-established, indigenous firms many of whom were household names. The recession also led to a big increase in the number of applications coming before Fóir Teoranta and in the disbursements it made. The latter in particular was affected by a small number of large applications for assistance. I do not agree — as Deputy Rabbitte tried to imply — that the large increase in disbursements was in any way due to the person who was the Chairman of the board of Fóir Teoranta at that time. I am satisfied that the board of the company, from their inception, acted as they were required to do in accordance with the criteria laid down in the founding legislation and in the Fóir Teoranta mandate. I reject Deputy Rabbitte's assertions in that regard. They were irresponsible statements. I listened very carefully to what the Deputy had to say and at times I had difficulty in trying to establish whether he was in favour of the abolition of Fóir Teoranta or against it.
Deputy Rabbitte also raised the matter of the decision to cease publication of the list of concerns which had received help from Fóir Teoranta. As the company made clear at the time experience had shown that the publication of the list had two very serious adverse effects. First, it tended to damage the credit standing of the firms whose names appeared on the list and, second, the board were satisfied that publication had caused firms to be put off coming to Fóir Teoranta until their financial situation had become so extreme that the prospects of putting an effective rescue package together had almost been seriously jeopardised. I found that to be the case in my own constituency in a case which we had dealt with for some time. There has been unanimity here on both sides of the House that something should be done to rescue a particular company but the adverse publicity caused that company to go out of business before anyone could do anything about it. An explanation was given at the time, which Deputy Rabbitte should be aware of, as to why the decision had been taken not to publish these figures.
Deputy Browne, Deputy Taylor and other Deputies spoke about the Chapter II procedure in the context of the Companies (No. 2) Bill, 1987, which is before the House. It is the general hope — and it is my hope — that the Bill will be law before the end of the year. As Deputies are aware, the provisions of the Bill are being examined in detail by a special committee of the House. I hope the good work being done by that committee will continue at a reasonable pace so as to enable that important legislation to be enacted as soon as possible. The Minister stated in his opening remarks that he would look to the examiner provisions of the Bill to pay a very positive and important role in company-agreed construction in the future. Neither he nor I can agree with Deputy Noonan that the procedures provided for will be so complex and so difficult that they will be almost impracticable and unworkable.
As regards the general economic position and the question of the impact of the closure of Fóir Teoranta on employment, inflationary pressures are the biggest danger to the economic recovery that is now taking place. It will be necessary to combat these pressures with every means at our disposal. Extra employment will only be generated on a sustainable basis when the general economic environment is correct. There is little point in trying to save jobs by direct State intervention if firms are, perhaps, grossly under capitalised or badly managed or possibly both. If such firms do not sort themselves out the marketplace will do it for them. As has been said previously it would be far better to see a firm taken over on a new recapitalised basis with a new dynamic management than to prop up an old firm with taxpayers' money. The overall level and quality of employment in the economy is what we are concerned about. This Government will continue to do everything in their power to ensure that the increase in industrial production necessary to sustain long-term viable employment is achieved. I am encouraged in this regard by the fact that the number of proposed redundancies notified under the redundancy payment scheme has decreased from about 24,200 in 1987 to about 13,400 in 1989.
Nearly all the Deputies who contributed here genuinely felt there may be adverse consequences or a gap left in the arm of administration on the winding up of Fóir Teoranta. In regard to management advice in the absence of Fóir Teoranta, companies whose financial problems are related to poor management may be assisted by a number of State agencies such as the Industrial Development Authority, Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Údarás na Gaeltachta, FÁS, Córas Tráchtála, and the Irish Productivity Centre. They all provide management training and advice whether or not a firm is in financial difficulty. In addition the Irish Management Institute, which receives substantial State assistance, also provides management consultancy services and management training courses.
Deputy Durkan, Deputy Taylor, Deputy Browne and others spoke about alternative sources of finance in the absence of Fóir Teoranta. Only manufacturing companies are affected by the decision to wind up Fóir Teoranta. Such companies experiencing financial difficulty may approach other financial institutions, including the Industrial Credit Corporation, or seek equity finance with a view to having their financial requirements met. The business expansion scheme may be of assistance to firms in this situation. NADCORP or, indeed, the private sector venture capital companies may also be in a position to provide equity finance to suitable firms. The Industrial Development Authority has power to provide, in the interests of promoting the restructuring of Irish industry, financial assistance where an industrial concern is being merged with or acquired by another industrial concern. There is, of course, a range of State services which includes the provision of financial advice for industrial firms generally. The fears expressed by Deputies in that regard, although genuine, are not justified. As I said, it is my experience of dealing with companies in difficulty during the years that the multiplicity of agencies tend to compound the issue rather than be of assistance in finding a solution to the problem.
Deputy Browne made reference to the need to make provision for the staff. Every step was taken to ensure that the staff were dealt with fairly. The Department of Finance initiated discussions with both management and staff representatives immediately after the wind-up decision was announced. The terms of the public sector voluntary redundancy-early retirement package were offered to the staff. At the same time staff who wished to be considered for redeployment to other areas of the public sector were facilitated in so doing. Of the 31 staff on the books of Fóir Teoranta at the time of the wind up announcement 17 have taken the voluntary redundancy-early retirement package, nine have been redeployed to other areas of the public service and five heads of staff are still employed by Fóir Teoranta. Efforts are being made to deal with their situation in a satisfactory way. Therefore Deputies can be assured that in the discussions which took place the interests of the staff were taken fully into account.
I have responded in a very general way to the comments made during the course of the debate on this Bill which was positive apart from the one or two little instances which are best forgotten. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put.
In accordance with the Order of the House the vote in question will take place at 6.45 p.m. next Tuesday, 19 June 1990.
The Dáil adjourned at 12.35 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 June 1990.