Vol. 438 No. 4
15 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the matters discussed at his meeting with interested parties involved in the crisis at a company (details supplied): the outcome of any such discussions; and if he will give his assessment of the prospects for saving the jobs of the company's employees.
I refer the Deputy to my reply in this matter on 26 January last. Since that time, however, an examiner was appointed by the High Court to the Kentz group of companies on 28 January. I understand that the examiner is due to report back to the court within 14 days of his date of appointment. It is not possible for me, therefore, to make any assessment or comment before that report has been made.
We seem to be in a strait-jacket. What can the Minister say to the House about the Kentz Corporation controversy in the context of the particular construction put on it abroad? What are the prospects of saving a majority of the engineering skills and the jobs of so many people, as a result of the examinership process?
I thank the Deputy for the diplomacy of his supplementary question. There is not much I can say at this stage and he would be the first to understand that. The people working for the Kentz Corporation have marketable skills. I hope, whatever the outcome — I cannot comment or prejudice in any way the outcome of the examinership or the receivership — the contracts which are currently being carried out by subsidiaries of the Kentz Corporation can be continued and that the people working on such contracts can continue to do so. I hope that the experience, skills and the marketing expertise which Kentz Corporation has acquired over the years can be salvaged in the most efficient manner possible to ensure that a very substantial international engineering company, operating from Clonmel, can continue. I cannot give any indication beyond that, neither can I indicate what assistance may be available to such a company until we know the outcome of the current proceedings.
I share the concerns of the Minister and the Deputy in regard to a successful outcome. Will the Minister state whether experience, in this case, has shown that the job protection agency he established within his Department has been helpful to this company and has it been intimately involved with the attempts to put together a rescue package?
I wonder whether we are going outside the bounds of this question.
The company comes within the ambit of the construction industry and, broadly speaking, the Department of the Environment has direct responsibility for that sector. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, has dealt directly with the Kentz Corporation on a number of occasions. Because of the rapidity with which the problem emerged, the early warning system, the CEPU — the competitive and employment protection unit — was not directly involved and not contacted. The matter had become acute and was brought directly to the attention of the Government and the Minister for the Environment who dealt directly with it.
While fully recognising the delicacy of the situation and respecting the constraints on the Minister at this time, can he give any indication as to how workers in sub-contracting companies or suppliers may fare in the operation now underway?
Obviously, that is a question of considerable concern to the large number of people who find themselves in that situation. In effect, they are dependent on the outcome of the actions of the examiner. I hesitate to give an indication of the outcome on the floor of this House.
Question No. 17 please.
