asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if he will support, in the High Court or otherwise, the application by the workers at the Irish Press Group for the appointment of an examiner to the company.
Private Notice Question. - Irish Press Group Dispute.
The High Court is the only body that permits a company to go under the protection of the court but it only does so where there are reasonable prospects that the entity, or a significant proportion of it, has a viable future. The Deputy will be aware that a petition may be presented for the protection of the High Court by (a) the company, (b) the directors of the company, (c) a creditor or contingent or prospective creditor including an employee of the company or (d) members of the company holding not less than 10 per cent of the equity or by all or any of those parties, together or separately.
By right, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment can intervene only where the petition is in respect of an insurer. As a result of the recent court action by Irish Press plc in connection with the competition report, costs were awarded to the Department. However, the sum involved is negligible and not of sufficient size to justify intervention by means of an examiner application.
I have repeatedly indicated my concern to see as much diversity as possible in the Irish media. The situation in the Irish Press is essentially a business one compounded by industrial relations problems and the Irish Press titles have suffered radically declining circulation over a long period. A recent Supreme Court decision represented a further serious setback for the group.
The industrial relations record of the company over a long period has been far from good and current difficulties are a further indication of that. The Companies (Amendment) Act, 1990, is not designed to address the issues which are evident in the Irish Press, which I do not need to further indicate to the House. The requirements of company law in the circumstances reflect that decision. There is no role for me, as Minister, in the process on which the company or others have embarked.
In view of the decision of Irish Press Newspapers to go into liquidation I am awaiting developments and, consequently, it would not be appropriate to take immediate action until the position is clearer. I am keeping the evolving situation under review.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The workers brought their application before the court today. All parties withdrew and are to meet again at 4 o'clock this evening. What the Minister of State said may well be the substance of the matter but I would have to take further advice on the size of the equity. The duty of the Minister and the Department of Enterprise and Employment extends beyond what the Minister of State said. I understand from the workers, who are members of different trade unions, that if an examiner were appointed they would regard such a person as an honest broker in this muddied and muddled situation and as one who would oversee investors prepared to invest in the company. If the Department joined itself with the application it would be regarded as a strong, decisive and dramatic move and may prove to be the turning point in this drama. I urge the Minister to adopt this role rather than the role of a bystander.
The primary concern of my Department since the dispute was precipatated by the sacking of a senior journalist has been the jobs at the Irish Press Group and the maintenance of at least some element of diversity and pluralism in the media. These considerations must be to the fore in any decisions we take. If it is being represented to me that a course of action is open to us which would ensure the maintenance of the optimum number of jobs in the medium term, as distinct from tommorrow or next week, and would meet the requirement, which I think is shared across the political divide, of diversity and pluralism in the media then I will follow it.
On the suggestion that the Minister should be joined as an applicant in the petition for an examiner, the legislation does not contemplate this action and would not achieve the objectives we are seeking. If I thought it would achieve these then I would be open to be persuaded by the argument. We have to consider the knock-on consequences of any decision we take and whether the taking of it would make the position worse. We are not of the view that it would be helpful in the present situation to be joined with this application.
I accept the Minister's point of view but, having studied the matter and received informal legal advice, the course of action I have suggested might save the company, restore employment, secure worthwhile investment and restore confidence. I urge the Minister even at this late stage not to shut the door on this proposal which has been put forward in good faith by the workers but rather to look at it again in the Department. The Minister quoted the Companies Act but, given the potential loss of jobs and the need to maintain diversity and pluralism in the media——
The Deputy's questioning is too long.
——it is only proper and correct that the Department would take a proactive role in this matter.
I appreciate the Deputy's concern that she and, probably more important, the Minister be seen to do something in a dispute which none of us wanted and which has given rise to an unfortunate situation for journalism and politics. The principals of the group recently said that liquidation is and was inevitable irrespective of the industrial relations complications. I would like to be able to say to Deputy O'Rourke that we have a way out of the impasse but the fact is that it is a private company and the principals are apparently intent on making their own decision. Deputy O'Rourke is inviting me to adopt a course of action which would involve me commenting on what I consider to be the prospects of an examiner being appointed in the first instance under the terms of the Companies (Amendment) Act and whether this would be a good move. I do not wish to be drawn into this as those who have initiated the action presumably consider that the outcome will be beneficial.
My Department and I have formed a view on the matter and the recent report of the Company Law Review Group recommends a tightening of the test on the appointment of an examiner so that the judge and court are satisfied there is a reasonable prospect of the company in question surviving. If I follow that line of thinking certain conclusions can be inferred which I do not wish to be inferred. The applicants in this case did not contact my Department to advise us that they were embarking on this course or to ask us to join with them in the application. We have to make our decision on the basis of the objective facts as we see them.
Like Deputy O'Rourke, I have not had much opportunity to examine this matter in the detail I would like. I only heard a half an hour ago that this question was being taken. I agree it is an important issue but we still have to decide whether our intervention would be constructive in all the circumstances. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to dictate decisions on this matter. In deference to the Deputy, I will be very pleased to go back to my Department and examine whether an intervention by the Minister would be constructive or beneficial having regard to the overall response outlined by him yesterday. I am happy to give the Deputy that undertaking.
I thank the Minister for his response — it is a matter of seizing the day. This is a political matter which can be addressed in a political fashion. If the course of action I have outlined increases the chances of retaining the jobs and securing proper investment then I urge the Minister to take it.
I probably should have said that the appointment of an examiner is normally sought in the case of an ongoing trading concern. From memory I do not know of any circumstances where an examiner has been appointed outside a trading concern. The group concerned is not currently trading. That is a material factor.
I do not know of any case where an examiner was sought, appointed by the court and subsequently removed the management. I am not sure everybody would agree, in these circumstances, that staving off the creditors for a period to allow a person appointed by the courts to examine the books of the company and probably find what most of us already have reasonable knowledge of, with the existing management, is likely to be a more beneficial outcome. It is probably inevitable in view of the decisions threatened for 28 June. I undertake to examine every aspect of this dispute.