I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Shea.
Adjournment Debate. - Waterford Crystal Jobs.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am glad that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, is able to attend this debate because the position in Waterford Crystal is alarming and we should all be extremely concerned at the trend of recent events. I have been forecasting difficulties for that company in this House for the past three or four months and the time has arrived for the Government to take an initiative in this regard. When I say "the Government" I mean the Taoiseach, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and other relevant Ministers, such as the Ministers for Finance and Labour.
It is not good enough to say that the company and the unions should work out their own destiny, the matter is far too serious for that at this stage. Mistakes have been made on all sides and the recent announcement that 525 jobs are to be lost is very serious. The indications that the whole operation may move out of Ireland is very frightening. We do not want to see that happening as it would mean the loss of more than 2,000 jobs and, obviously, a multiple of that number would be affected by a complete closure.
I do not wish to be an alarmist; I want to be realistic. However, I do not want to have to come in here shouting about this matter in a few months' time when this assembly resumes. I wish to make it clear that I believe the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce should meet the board of Waterford Crystal.
I accept the Minister met management today, but I regard the management — with no disrespect to them because they are quite an able team — as intermediaries in this matter. The people who count in this affair are the members of the board, particularly Dr. Tony O'Reilly, and the chairman, Mr. Brennan. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, and the Taoiseach should sit down with those people and hammer out a solution to save these jobs. I hold no brief whatever for people who advocate that the industry should be nationalised, I do not regard that as an option. People should be willing to give and take and if the company need financial aid from the Government through the aegis of the IDA, they should get it. I appeal to the Minister to talk to the people who will be making the decisions in the boardroom.
I thank Deputy Deasy for sharing his time with me on this critical issue for the constituency we both represent.
The future of Waterford Crystal is no longer just a Waterford and Dungarvan issue, it is a national one. Waterford Crystal is a flagship industry and the industrial success story of the Irish State. Are the Government prepared to accept an international brand name, which was built up by workers in Waterford and Dungarvan based on a tradition going back over 200 years, being used on inferior foreign products in an attempt to maximise profits for an American controlling interest? This is being done at the expense of Irish jobs and the Irish economy.
Are the Government prepared to let Mr. Brennan know, in no uncertain terms, that this is contrary to Irish interests and that the Government are, therefore, totally opposed to it? The bottom line is the protection of jobs and earnings in Ireland. Will the Government provide the necessary resources to achieve this fundamental objective in a company that will become profitable over a reasonable timescale if the right tactics are put in place by the Government?
A controlling Irish interest — either a single interest or a consortium of interests — is the best way to achieve this objective. Such a strategy should be explored urgently by the Government and the IDA in the context of the management entering into meaningful negotiations with the unions with all production options in Ireland included and a plan agreed. The jobs in Waterford and Dungarvan must be retained. That is the Government's responsibility. Like Deputy Deasy, I am not putting forward a case for nationalisation, but we must be flexible because this is a crucial industry in our economy. It is an international brand name and time is running out. The Government have to get things moving.
I fully share the Deputy's concern about the current problems facing this company. I have been keeping in touch with developments in the company over recent months. I have had meetings with both the management and the workers' representatives. Indeed, I met the chairman and the chief executive of Waterford Crystal — both of whom are also members of the Waterford Wedge-wood plc board — as recently as a few hours ago.
What they had to say to me was no surprise to anyone who has been following the problems in Waterford Crystal over recent years. Essentially they told me that the company are facing very serious problems of competitiveness which must be addressed. Costs, they said, are too high for the level of sales being achieved. They see it as inevitable that jobs will have to be shed, as the chief executive already indicated to the staff last week. They see themselves as very much constrained in what they can do because of the limited funds available from their banks and investors, but if they do not do what is necessary, the future of the Waterford plant must be in some doubt in the medium term.
Having listened to the company, and at an earlier stage to the workers' representatives, I am struck by how difficult the circumstances are for the company and for the staff whose jobs are at real risk. But, however difficult things are now, it is certain that they will be worse for everyone involved if the company do not get things right in terms of the market and especially of their production costs in Waterford.
Those costs have already caused some products to be sourced elsewhere. That has been a very great disappointment to many. I wish it were not so. But we cannot force consumers overseas — especially in a recession such as that of recent years — to buy products which are too dear because production costs are out of kilter. The best way — and the only sustainable way — to ensure that the maximum possible amount of production continues in Waterford is to get costs there down.
It is widely recognised that the company face serious problems. Their main markets in the UK and the US have been hit by recession. It is good to see from their annual report for 1991 that the latter half of that year saw some relative improvement in sales.
I have been assured by the company that they are doing everything possible to try to improve their competitive position. The company's decision to source some products outside this country has already caused concern. The company see this, however, as increasing market share in a declining market and generating urgently needed, business to help the company back to profitability.
My concern and that of the Government is that the management and staff of the company should work together to assure their future. Waterford Crystal are not only of local but of national importance. The unique status of the company has to be protected through continuing the traditional high standards of craftsmanship in Waterford on an efficient and profitable basis.
The company tell me that they are continuing to work on their development plans for the future. They will be in dialogue with staff representatives about what steps will have to be taken. In the meantime, speculation about their plans would not be helpful.
I can assure Deputies that I have been, and am, available to discuss matters with the company and that I will continue to respond positively to any future requests from the company for further discussions about their plans. I fully agree with Deputies that it would be a major tragedy not just for the company but for the region and country as a whole, if production were to cease. However, I am hopeful that, with the constructive cooperation of all concerned, that will not happen.
Has the Minister offered Government aid under the aegis of the IDA?
I am sorry, the Minister's reply concludes the debate.