asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce what progress, if any, has been made in the acquisition and utilisation of factory premises in Bantry, County Cork, formerly in the occupation of a firm (name supplied).
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - County Cork Factory.
34.
The position regarding the future of this factory is substantially the same as it was when the Deputy raised the matter on 4th March last. Any question of transfer of its ownership is likely to involve legal proceedings and accordingly it would be inappropriate for me to make any statement at present.
Is the Minister aware that questions were not put down in this House for three years after the closing of the factory in the hope that some arrangement would be made that an alternative firm would be brought in and give employment?
I am not aware that the matter was left in abeyance.
Will the Minister not agree that this has been a most messy business? The Department of Industry and Commerce paid a substantial amount of public money——
The Deputy cannot continue making speeches. He is abusing Question Time.
I am speaking about the question of public funds. I am sure the Minister has the details and I do not wish to go into them now. The IDA people should be ashamed of themselves that they were caught like that——
The Deputy cannot continue making a speech.
Is the Minister not aware that grants were allocated to the firm named in the question for the provision of a factory at Bantry? Will the Minister agree that no grants would have been made available if the application had been investigated in the first instance?
I do not agree.
Is the Minister not aware that, subsequent to criminal court proceedings, a four figure sum of money was paid to this company, despite remarks by the Judiciary, despite the activities of the firm in the adjoining country and despite the publicity given to the proceedings? Public funds were given to the company subsequent to the court proceedings when people must have read the newspaper reports and been aware of the position.
That is a separate question. I am calling Question No. 35.
Can the Minister say why public funds were paid in such circumstances?
I have already called Question No. 35.
I should like an answer to the question. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by raising the matter on the Adjournment.
It has nothing to do with the question the Deputy has put down. I have called Question No. 35 several times.
The then Minister for Industry and Commerce was responsible and he should resign.
I have called Question No. 35 repeatedly. Would Deputy Murphy please allow Questions to continue? He has made three speeches one after another.