asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether there are grounds for taking possession of the Weir Textile Mills, Tuam, County Galway, as the factory, which has been closed for some years, was started with the aid of an industrial grant; and if he will make a statement on the position.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Galway Textile Mills.
42.
The factory premises referred to by the Deputy are in private ownership and there are no grounds on which possession of them could be taken by the State. I understand that the owners have been endeavouring to sell the premises for some time.
Is it not a fact that the State put money into this project which was a white elephant established by the Coalition prior to a general election? It has been lying idle for years and giving no employment. I think the Minister should make some effort to see that the money put into it by the State is recouped. Perhaps it could be included in the Galway Industrial Estate. It is a fully equipped factory.
(Cavan): Does the Minister not consider that when the State invests a large amount of public money in factories like this —I would remind Deputy Kitt there are more white elephants in the country than the one in Tuam——
It was started by the Coalition Government.
There is one on the main road to Cork, Potez.
(Cavan): The same principle is involved here.
Does the Minister not think that since a large amount of public money is invested in these factories the State should retain some control over them and should seek power to ensure that these factories are put into production and provide employment? Does the Minister not agree it is outrageous that large sums of public money, running into thousands of pounds, should be put into these factories and that they should then be allowed to lie there until they qualify for another grant, a derelict sites grant?
When a grant is given to a firm like this, would it not be possible for the Government to get at least a second mortgage, so that if it is sold at a profit or if there is liquidation, the Government would be able to recoup if any moneys remain?
To my knowledge, there are several industries looking for this building if they could only acquire it. Something should be done to help them do so.
With regard to the first part of Deputy Kitt's supplementary, I cannot dispute the facts as indicated by him. With regard to the other points raised, I would point out to the House that ideally we could devise a system that would ensure in the event of failure of an industry we would get back all the money or at least get full control of the premises or plant. But if we did this we would get very few industries to come in. This is the problem: to devise a system that will allow freedom of operation to people to come in without throwing away all the State's interest. In fact, at the time this factory was built in Galway in 1956 there was a provision that the premises could not be disposed of for a period of five years without the consent of An Foras Tionscal. The main purpose was to ensure that if the industry should fail their property would have to be at the disposal of a suitable industry which would take its place. Usually in cases like that arrangements are made with An Foras Tionscal whereby the original grant is passed on to the new people taking over the factory. The regulations now provide that the provision is for a ten-year period as against a five-year period
(Cavan): When did that come into operation?
A couple of years ago.
(Cavan): Is the one I am interested in covered by the ten-year period?
It is not the subject of this question but I think it is covered. At any rate, that place is not lost; this one is. As far as I know, it is true that efforts are being made to dispose of this factory. But Deputy Kitt can rest assured that if there is anything I, my Department or An Foras Tionscal can do to assist in disposing of it, we are only too willing to do it.
The Minister mentioned a ten-year period. That does not get us out of anything. Is it not possible that in ten years the property could appreciate to such an extent that a firm could stop manufacturing and sell the factory at a profit? If you had a second mortgage on it and if a factory sold out at a profit the Government could take back what they gave by way of grant? Would that not be a better system?
When the Minister says he agrees with most of what Deputy Kitt said in the first part of his supplementary, is the Minister trying to infer he agrees that this building was erected by Fine Gael and the Coalition at election time?
I said I could not disagree with the earlier part of the supplementary question. I cannot disagree with it on the facts as I have known them.
It is a white elephant.
(Interruptions.)
On the question of the second mortgage, Deputy Belton will be aware that in many cases these industries coming in here, in addition to the grant, may be getting a loan from a bank. In most cases banks are not prepared to advance money on a first mortgage if they know there is going to be a second mortgage.
They will, of course.
They will in certain cases, but the Deputy is aware they are not happy about this situation. As far as we are concerned, we have to be in a position to offer industrialists inducements with the minimum of strings attached if we are to get them in.
A second mortgage would not interfere.
I know it would not in theory but it would in practice.