Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for selecting this topic for debate. I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Rourke.
Adjournment Debate. - Proposed Take-over of Textile Plant.
That is satisfactory and agreed.
Six days ago the Minister announced the take-over of the socks and underwear division of the Sunbeam industry in Blackpool in Cork, a modest but nonetheless welcome development. He committed £400,000 of taxpayers' money to a new company called Millfield Textiles Limited. Since then he has persistently refused to reveal the identity of the new owners of the company. When pressed on the matter Forbairt explained that certain details of the package regarding the private investors remained to be finalised. Can the Minister explain why £400,000 of taxpayers' money was approved before all details of the transaction were finalised? That is not normal practice and I believe it is without precedent. Why the panic? Will the Minister concede that taxpayers have a right to know who are the recipients of their money? Will he consider that members of the outgoing workforce and their union representatives have a right to know the names of the prospective employers? Will he admit that, as a public representative, I have a right to demand on their behalf what conditions, if any, were attached to the Government grants, a right to seek assurance that this money will be invested in job creation, not asset enhancement?
There is a clear perception that taxpayers' money, voted to create and maintain jobs in this industry, was not used for that specific purpose. In that event the obligation to be open and accountable is even more urgent than in any other case. The Minister has a clear obligation to spell out the conditions attached to the granting of the latest tranche of taxpayers' money.
When I queried the identity of those people, I was told by the junior Minister, sitting beside the Minister, on a radio programme that nobody had inquired about the identity of the Pfizer Corporation when it moved into Cork. I put it to the Minister and the Minister of State that the position regarding Sunbeam is a far cry from the investment of the American Pfizer Corporation.
The workers are quite happy that they are getting an investment, we are not getting crocodile tears.
Let us hear the Deputy in possession without interruption.
The development at Sunbeam is welcome but modest. In the week leading up to the announcement of the take-over of a division of that company, I was given the impression that there would be an investment of £1 million from the new investors in addition to a State grant of £400,000 and that 150 jobs would be saved. That has not happened.
I challenge the Deputy to state who told her that.
How many jobs will be saved? When will the announcement be made regarding the 100 jobs?
I thank my colleague, Deputy Quill, for giving me the opportunity to contribute. I speak on this issue from a national point of view and on behalf of Deputy Dan Wallace who wishes me to make the point that many concerned constituents who lost their jobs in Sunbeam telephoned him as they are concerned about their fate and the fate of the proposed 100 jobs for that company. Indeed, Deputy Quill made many valid points.
I have sought endlessly to secure information on that company from the Minister, but he has not given it. When he responds will he tell me why he wishes to keep matters related to the IDA and Forbairt a secret to himself and his Department? Will he also indicate why he has consistently failed in reply to written and oral parliamentary questions to give the facts to which I am entitled as my party's spokesperson on Enterprise and Employment? The Minister has frequently told me that these are not matters I should know about and that they are private, but they are not as public money is being invested in firms. Such matters are not investigated by a committee and there is no accountability regarding them. I thought the Minister would be different and that he would want to explain matters. I ask him when responding to give me the facts and to indicate why he cannot give the details of the jobs per business, what the IDA is doing with the taxpayers' money or to what forum it, Forfás and Forbairt can be made accountable to enable us, the representatives of the people, know to what use their money is being put.
The proposed take-over of the Sunbeam operation was discussed in detail in the House on 15 June in the context of parliamentary questions relating to the clothing and textile sectors. I advised the Deputy and the House on that occasion that a new company, Millfield Textiles Limited, would be formed which would take over Sunbeam's socks and underwear operations. The proposal was approved by the Forbairt board last week. Forbairt advised me that all the promoters do not wish to be publicly identified at this stage. I understand they are a group of Irish business people who have considerable experience in the textile sectors and general business. They appointed Mr. Tom Hayden, one of those involved, as their spokesman. Mr. Hayden is a former, non-executive director and a small minority shareholder in Sunbeam Industries and one of the members of the take-over group. Apart from Mr. Hayden the ownership and control of the new enterprise has passed to new promoters. I understand that the new company will make an announcement in due course. In the meantime Mr. Hayden proposes to meet the unions within the next few days to apprise them of developments.
The condition attaching to the State grants being made available to the new company are contained in confidential legal agreements between Forbairt and the promoters and it has never been the convention to reveal such confidential commercial information to the House. Deputy O'Rourke is aware of that from her experience in the Department. As I indicated, the issues are the day to day responsibility of Forbairt and the general disclosure of the specific details of the grant conditions of an individual company would not be helpful to the relevant State agencies in promoting the development of industry. The Deputy knows this was the practice observed when she was in the Department.
It used to come before a committee, but it no longer does.
There is no breaking of new ground.
There is.
It has always been the pattern that Forbairt would maintain confidentiality with those with whom they deal and I am continuing the policy of predecessors which has good basis in fact. I know Forbairt requires that level of confidence in dealing with applications.
Last year the Minister proposed that it be brought to a committee.
I have no problem with that.
He should do that.
Deputy O'Rourke has made her contribution. Let us hear the Minister's reply.
That is not open to me, it is open to the House. As the Deputy is aware, the House makes decisions about committees.
Last year the Minister called it a PR exercise, and it was.
The Deputy continues to interrupt on every occasion I speak here. I do not believe she cares to hear the truth when it is put. She will have to face up to the fact that a Minister is entitled to reply and I am replying to the issues raised.
On a point of order, last year the Minister, when in Opposition, called the activities of the IDA a PR exercise.
That is not a point of order, but I want to make one.
The time for Adjournment debates is extremely limited and interruptions are particularly unwelcome.
Thank you, Sir. I understand from Forbairt that recruitment of up to 50 people will commence in July and as the market develops the new company intends to employ 100 people at full production. I have also been advised that if the company's projected sale targets are exceeded this could lead to job opportunities in excess of those predicted. While Millfield Textiles will operate in a difficult and highly competitive sector, I am confident that the combination of new enthusiastic management, equity backed by significant Forbairt support and the full co-operation of the workforce augurs well for the company's future. I am sure those sentiments will be shared by all Members.