Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 Nov 1981

Vol. 330 No. 12

Fóir Teoranta (Amendment) Bill, 1981: Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

This is the nub of the Bill because it concerns the raising of the financial limits within which Fóir Teoranta can operate. This raises the fundamental principle of the operation of that company, the criteria on which they operate and how they allocate the funds made available by this House. A number of Deputies asked about the practical operation of Fóir Teoranta and, as was referred to by the Minister, other State agencies with Fóir Teoranta.

Let us get down to specifics, because this is something on which the Coalition can be tested. We must ask if they support basic industries. I am not talking about a Government through their agencies supporting any and every lame dog industry. I am asking if the Government are genuine about supporting basic industries. I am talking about a specific industry which has built up a pool of expertise over a number of years, where there are young people, fathers and grandfathers living in this city who have acquired skills. About 500 people are involved in this industry and 1,200 people in allied industries.

The Minister did not answer the points I raised on Second Stage. I want to know if the Government are serious about getting involved in basic industries, such as the pulp industry which is related to the Government's forestry programme, and the supply of timber products. The development of a pulp industry could lead to newsprint production, an industry we do not have at present. All this is the subject of a report which has not yet been published but which is available to the Government as a result of a joint study by the Forestry Department and the Industrial Development Authority. This report makes available to the Government the medium and long-term prospects of a profitable venture which would be suitable for joint investment by the State and private industry.

The Clondalkin Group Limited issued a press release today in which they emphasised that they wanted to ensure "a risk-sharing concept" on their part and on the part of the State. They said there was a marked absence of any commitment by the Tánaiste, whom they met, to risk-sharing and that there was no indication that there would be any further State aid forthcoming over and above that offered by the IDA on 21 October 1981.

They will do a U-turn if we keep up the pressure.

Total That cherism from a Labour Party leader. All that socialism has vanished——

The once proud Labour Party.

They have become a today party to the conservative majority party in the Coalition Government.

Sounds like the National Development Corporation.

I will come to that now. With the ringing of bells in the Gaiety Theatre—probably an appropriate place — and in a pantomime performance we had unveiled the National Development Corporation. We did not have decent people involved in this pantomime, such as Jimmy O'Dea or more modern artists, but there were other artists involved.

There were bus loads of Kerrymen.

Instead of Maureen Potter we had people from the rural areas brought up to out-vote the wish of the ordinary members of the Labour Party.

Perhaps we could have less on the Gaiety and more on section 2.

Perhaps the Deputy enjoys theatricals.

This section deals with the Government's financial commitment to Fóir Teoranta. I submit that the Labour Party are committed to the establishment of the National Development Corporation, the financing of which was estimated by the Tánaiste at £600 million. This sort of money should be spent on a National Development Corporation, which was an excellent idea in many ways. The whole idea behind the setting up of such a corporation is that it manages to mobilise existing agencies, make the assessment and then the investment required in particular circumstances. That means agencies such as the IDA, FT and the ICC. All that requires to be done is not to set up a National Development Corporation, not to talk in imaginary figures like £600 million but simply to implement the legislation that is here in this section for dealing with companies in difficulties that could be rescued and managed through the efforts of a combination of the agencies I have mentioned who have financial and managerial skills.

Why is this not being done in regard to the case we are now discussing and which we must regard as a test case? I am not talking about small industries in other fields. Here we are concerned with a basic company involved in the whole structure of Irish industry. It has been there for a long time and it is bound to have built up a pool of skills. It is concerned in some but not all of its operations with the processing of Irish timber products and it is part of a group of public companies that have a standing in the economy. Will the Government take a risk equity investment in that operation or not? I am asking the Minister to answer me now. I asked him during the Second Stage but he glossed over it. He did not choose to answer a single point I had made. We have had this statement in the press today after consultations between the unions and the management. This evening Deputy Haughey and other Fianna Fáil Deputies, including me, met the union representatives of the workers in the Clondalkin company——

Which is more than the Tánaiste did.

The management see a way out. The workers, whom I met between 4 and 5 p.m. today see this as the way out. They were totally representative of the group of workers in the company but the Tánaiste refused to see them.

The Deputy is talking through his hat. The Tánaiste is with that delegation.

I am glad he has woken up — I am delighted to hear it.

If the Deputy would give way I would reply willingly to the points he is making.

He refused to see them up to 4 o'clock this afternoon.

He never refused to meet them. The Deputy is talking through his hat. Not only that, but he met them——

Between four and five this afternoon I was with the workers, and they told me they were not being seen by the Tánaiste. Then, of course, the message went abroad that they were seeing Deputy Harney, Deputy Walsh and me, and then Deputy Haughey.

As a matter of fact I saw them last week.

The Tánaiste emerged from whatever place he occupies during the morning and afternoon — he is never in the House, he is never in his office. He emerged from whatever menage he occupies during the day. I am glad he appeared at 6 o'clock.

Would Deputy Lenihan address the Chair? When the Minister of State is replying he will have an opportunity——

He might inform us what is happening. It will be very interesting because at 5.30 p.m. the people concerned, the workers, the trade unions representing them in the factory, were not aware of any appointment with the Tánaiste. I am glad to hear now that he has seen fit to meet them following the meeting with Deputy Haughey. At last, some reality is being brought into it. We are not talking about small details. Here there are jobs at risk, a basic industry is at risk. We want to know whether there is to be a real commitment by the Government towards risk sharing in this industry because of its fundamental place in the whole structure of Irish industry. It is the processing sector of the country's timber resources. We want to know if Fóir Teoranta will play a part in it.

I have referred to a report prepared by the IDA and the Department of Forestry when I was in charge of the Department. That report recommended that in the medium and long-term there was a tremendous future for such an industry based on national raw materials, provided that there was reorganisation, that the State took a part in it. Of course many aspects of the State agencies have to be considered in this respect. The ESB play an important part because of their power input. We must remember also the forestry input.

Unless there is a lead by the Government this industry will go to the wall and there will not be any processing plant for pulp in Ireland. The skills that have been built up in that company will be lost. It has been set out in the report published by the IDA and the Department of Forestry. Has the Minister read that report?

I am fully aware of it.

I would ask the Deputy not to address questions to the Minister.

I happened to be a very helpful contributor to that report, unlike Coalition Ministers who come in here and make recommendations and talk as if they were not Ministers. I happened to be a participant in the preparation of that report. I did not sit back to wait for the civil servants to come up with recommendations. It is clear the Minister is not aware of what is happening, of what is germane to this question. If he wants to hide behind the backs of the public service that is his business. I took a very personal interest in this not only from a constituency point of view but from the national point of view as the Minister responsible for Forestry at a time when it was necessary for that industry to survive. I did that on my own basis. I met trade union representatives, workers and management and made that political decision because I was a member of a Government who made political decisions. We did not hide behind civil servants.

And we were interested in people.

We were involved in being interested in people and taking political decisions. This is a test of the real interests of the Labour Party. Are they interested in ideological verbiage? Are they interested in ideological nonsense when talking about a national development corporation, funded to the tune of £600 million, to do what? If the Labour Party ideology and philosophy is right this is what a national development co-operation should be at. They should be taking over this firm and doing something about it. In this case the management, the trade unions and the workers are willing to go along with it. The whole basis of the press release issued by the management, supported by the trade unions and the workers, is that the State should come in on a risk-bearing basis. That is precisely what was intended by seemingly genuine socialists that they should go in, bear the risk and take an equity investment. I am not asking that the State do that in every investment. We do not want that. We do not want what happened in Britain so often but here is a basic industry germane to the whole structure of industry here because it is concerned with a basic product such as timber and concerned with newsprint. It is what could be described as a vertical type industry, not a horizontal one that could be hived off or dismissed. It is the only one of its type left here with a pool of skills and the management. All that it needs is an undertaking from the State that it will move in and agree to take part in the action.

The State should take the risk involved and it must be remembered that the risk is only temporary. If the Minister rereads the report he said he read recently he will see that the medium and long-term prospects in regard to the pulp processing industry are good. The situation at present is a temporary phenomenon. The workers and the trade unions put it to us today that if the liquidator is backed by the Government he can carry that industry over the next nine months or one year. All that is required is breathing space, for the Government to step in and say that these State agencies mean something, that Fóir Teoranta means something, that the IDA and the ICC mean something. This is a glorious opportunity to do that because the company want this. In so many cases companies do not want this help. The company, trade unions and workers want this to be done and the State agencies, if they were given the necessary directive, could do this. However, the Government are unwilling by reason by lack of political will to implement a basic part of urban social-philosophy, to maintain something that is worth maintaining, investing in something that has a future, to do anything about this problem. That amounts to gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Government.

I am long enough in and out of Government to recognise the signs and this had all the smells of a Government that are not paying attention to their job. The Government are supposed to have a philosophical commitment to step in and share risks but they are not doing that. It is a sad and wrong situation which shows up the whole credibility of the Labour Party. It appears that the Labour Party have lost all interest in maintaining any credibility.

I should like to deal in some detail with the points raised in relation to Clondalkin Paper Mills. My reluctance to enter the debate on this issue relates to one matter, the hope and expectation that even at this stage the company, in serious negotiations with the IDA and Fóir Teoranta, will put together an agreed package to save the jobs of the 470 workers concerned. There is a major question as to whether the company are serious about this proposition.

The Minister is just looking for a cop-out.

No, a scapegoat.

I should like to explain the facts of the situation. It is of vital importance that there be a commitment on the part of the Clondalkin Group — here I should advisedly choose my words — or possibly on the part of additional shareholders or new shareholders, to invest some funds and their management expertise to save the firm. There is a commitment on the part of the State which involves substantial risks, equity involvement in the firm and in terms of grants being made available and so on. I do not believe in going into great detail on the fortunes of particular firms. This is not generally done in the House in relation to Bills of this nature but the matter has been raised and the group managing director has seen fit to make four or five major statements relating to this firm. It is for that reason that I feel it necessary to put the record right. The managing director made a statement that he had requested £5 million. Some days later, according to The Irish Press, he requested £10 million.

Is that on file from him or is that taken from a press report?

It is on the record and now, according to tonight's Evening Press he has stated:

There was a marked absence of any commitment by An Tánaiste to risk-sharing and no indication that there would be any further State aid coming over and above that offered by the IDA on October 21, 1981.

That is a press report.

Let us take the facts as we see them and know them, and as Deputy Lenihan knows them. A consultancy group were hired by the IDA and it should be stated here that the IDA are sane and sensible about hiring consultancy groups to assess the viability of firms. It was the Boston Consultancy Group to be precise.

What is the name of the company?

They reported that with new equipment——

What is the name of the company?

The Boston Consultancy Group.

They were hired by the IDA and they reported that with new equipment costing about £2 million, and pursuing the right markets, this plant could be viable. That is on the record. Let us forget about Mr. Lund's comments about £5 million and £10 million.

As reported in verbatim comment by him. Let us forget some of the nonsense about brinkmanship.

What about the correspondence?

Let us be plain about this firm and the workers' families and the workers' rights.

We do not deal through newspapers.

The Minister should talk about the correspondence on the file.

The convention here is to avoid naming any person. I hope the Minister of State will honour that convention.

I will not tolerate any allegations by anybody outside this House in relation to the role of the Tánaiste or the Labour Party or this Government.

The Minister of State reads the newspapers only. He does not read the files.

The Minister of State is entitled to make his case.

The allegations made are manifestly and utterly incorrect.

The Minister of State should read the files.

The consultants indicated that with capital expenditure of £2 million on equipment this firm could be viable. I was a trade union official in this firm in the sixties. I know much more about it than many Deputies, and particularly Deputy Lenihan who never came to the constituency and never knew where Clondalkin was.

The Minister of State should not be personal.

It does not happen to be true.

I am very familiar with the problems of the Clondalkin Paper Mills in my former capacity as a trade union official——

The Minister of State should show more commitment to them.

——and because of my political involvement in the area. We must fasten on to the reasonable figure mentioned in the IDA report of a re-equipment requirement of £2 million for this plant. The IDA discharged their statutory obligation to make an initial response. They said they could offer up to 40 per cent, about £800,000, plus an interest subsidy of £300,000, plus releasing grant moneys due to the Clondalkin Group, the total package totalling about £1.5 million. Deputy Lenihan waves his hand as if to say this does not matter. The State is quite prepared to make a massive financial investment on behalf of the people to preserve and maintain the jobs of the 470 workers in this company.

Why has the Tánaiste been running away from the workers?

I can assure Deputy Lenihan and Deputy Burke that, if the managing director had displayed the great interest he is now displaying, he would have gone to Fóir Teo. long before, but apparently he did not.

He was told to go to the IDA by the Minister's Department.

In business life when one's firm is in difficulty, one goes rapidly to the well-known rescue agency, Fóir Teo.

He went to them.

And the IDA, and one puts together a package.

The trouble is that he went to the Tánaiste. That is his problem.

Where did he find him?

If this firm decide to go ahead with the redundancies projected by the firm on 7 December, the State will not accept any responsibility for failure to assist this company. A massive financial offer has been available to the company of £1.5 million to date, in terms of the first offer by the IDA, to try to assist the company. Deputies now say the State must take virtually 100 per cent risk.

Not 100 per cent.

The demands of the company have kept growing.

On a point of correction, no-one mentioned 100 per cent.

I want to finish what I am saying. The demands of the company kept growing. We will not face a situation in which the Government will solely, exclusively and totally take over the financial burden of keeping the company open——

——or the odium which Deputies are trying to place on the Government of closing it down. We have a right to point out to the managing director of this company — and to other private companies — that they too have a fundamental obligation to put basic capital equity into this firm who are now apparently in some financial difficulties.

Fifty-fifty.

I am delighted to see Deputy O'Malley in the House. I have already complimented him warmly on the work he did.

At least we rescued them.

He would not let Clondalkin Mills go.

Deputy Lenihan mentioned a 50-50 situation. The consultants recommended that the re-equipping of the firm——

Who are the consultants?

— would cost £2 million.

As a matter of interest who are the consultants?

The Chair would ask Deputy Lenihan to refrain from asking questions. This is Committee Stage and he will have an opportunity to ask his questions later.

I want to get the name of the consultants.

It has already been given. The Chair appeals to Deputy Lenihan to allow the Minister of State to proceed with his contribution. The Deputy will have ample opportunity to ask all these questions later.

I did not get the name. It was incomprehensible.

The Deputy will get that information in the way I have indicated. The Minister of State to continue with his contribution.

On a point of order, when the Minister of State named the company he did so sotto voce. I asked him to repeat the name and he did.

That is not a point of order.

I still believe——

Will the Minister of State allow the Chair to deal with its business in its own way? Deputy Gene Fitzgerald.

Obviously I am getting close to the bone. He mentioned a consultancy firm and I do not believe it exists. Could we again——

That is not a point of order. The Deputy is being disorderly in intervening in such a fashion. The Minister of State to proceed.

Deputy Lenihan suggested that the State should go 50-50 in saving this company.

A joint venture.

The Deputy knows perfectly well that the best available advice to the IDA was that this company required new additional equipment costing £2 million. All packages have preconditions. Quite rightly the State's interest must be protected. The total package from the IDA at this stage is £1.5 million. Bearing in mind that this was an initial response by the IDA, it cannot be regarded as ungenerous.

It is not an equity investment.

I have referred to brinkmanship at Clondalkin Paper Mills and I have questioned whether the company wish to close down altogether, perhaps to have the site redeveloped or for some other purpose of which my colleagues in Dublin County Council would not be unaware. This happened in the case of other sites. I will forego any further comments on that. I am on the county council and I am fully aware of some of the involvements of the Clondalkin group.

Were they not very lucky to find the Tánaiste at all? They would not have found him only that Deputy Charles J. Haughey and Deputies from the area met him.

(Interruptions.)

The Chair would appeal to Deputy Burke to desist from these frequent interruptions.

I am not interrupting. I am just helping a colleague——

Deputy Burke is quite aware that he is contravening the normal requirements of debate on Committee Stage of legislation.

Like the Minister of State who is contravening them on basic facts.

The Chair will deal with the Minister of State or any other Deputy who is disorderly. The Chair is informing Deputy Burke that he is being quite disorderly and I am appealing to him to allow the Minister of State to proceed with his contribution in the normal fashion.

I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I got slightly carried away in celebration of the fact that somebody had found the Tánaiste to meet this delegation he had refused to meet all day. But I apologise to the Chair.

Such apologies do not have any great appeal to the Chair. The Minister of State, Deputy Desmond, to proceed and again I appeal to Deputies Burke and Lenihan to desist from interrupting,

There are perhaps two other facts which should be known in relation to this matter. It is true that the board of Clondalkin offered the former Minister, my colleague, Deputy John Kelly, when he was Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism, totality of the shares of this company for an entirely nominal sum on the basis that the State would take over all debts, all future losses, all future investment costs and, of course, any redundancy costs. I am quite sure that my colleagues here would agree — and particularly Deputy O'Malley — that when companies walk into a Minister and say: "There it is, take the whole lot for a purely nominal figure. You can have it for a couple of quid, we will give you all the shares," that at that stage one does not regard that kind of approach as being serious, more particularly——

On what date did they offer me the company for nothing?

This is real Gaiety Theatre stuff.

The information is readily available.

On a point of order, the Minister of State says that I was offered this company for nothing and the implication is that I declined it. I recall having one meeting in, I think, early May of this year with the company and they certainly did not offer me the company either for nothing or for any specific amount. Would the Minister of State tell me on what date I was offered the company for nothing and refused it?

Deputy O'Malley appreciates that that is not a point of order but rather it is an interruption. Deputy O'Malley will have an opportunity of presenting that question to the Minister of State after he has resumed his seat.

I was anxious to present it at the earliest possible opportunity to clear up any misapprehension anyone might have.

I can readily answer it now because I think Deputy O'Malley misheard my comment. I said "the former Minister," and I was referring to Minister John Kelly. When he was Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism this particular offer was made——

Was he? Oh, I thought he was from the Gaiety Theatre on——

—— and it had nothing whatever to do with the former Minister, Deputy Desmond O'Malley.

Oh, the semantics are very interesting——

But Deputy Kelly was never allowed to exercise the functions of Minister for Industry and Commerce so how can they have offered him their factory for nothing?

There is one other important point to be put on the record——

(Interruptions.)

—— because there was no way that the State would be prepared to accept responsibility for the brinkmanship now in operation in relation to this company. The Minister of State, Deputy E. Collins, met the management and unions in Clondalkin Paper Mills on Friday, 6 November, as Opposition Deputies are fully aware——

It is very hard to keep track of them all now.

This came after an announcement by management and staff that the place would be closed down by early December. At that stage the Minister of State outlined the full extent of the offer made by the IDA which apparently was still regarded as insufficient——

That is the Minister, Deputy Collins?

Yes. It was deemed insufficient by the management. My colleague Deputy E. Collins, made a critical point at that stage. He urged the management to go back into discussions with the IDA and with Fóir Teoranta and said it was entirely premature at that stage to talk of any question of closure. Of course the immediate response from the company was the appointment of a liquidator——

Why had Ministers Collins, Kelly and O'Leary all to be involved in this matter?

The Chair is making a final appeal to Deputy Lenihan to desist from being very disorderly. The Chair will not ask Deputy Lenihan a second time, he will be asking Deputy Lenihan to remove himself from the House.

It is hard to comprehend——

The Chair will be asking Deputy Lenihan to leave the House if he continues being disorderly. That is final.

When there are over 470 jobs involved.

Deputy Raphael Burke likewise. Deputy Burke should behave himself. He knows he is being disorderly.

When there are over 470 jobs involved and one has to listen to that waffle——

Deputy Burke knows he is being disorderly and he too will be asked to leave the House if he continues to misbehave in this fashion.

Over 470 jobs and we have to listen to that waffle.

I am asking Deputy Burke to leave the House.

I will leave the House, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I regret that you find it necessary——

——when there are over 470 jobs involved.

Deputy Burke, I am asking you to leave the House without any further delay.

I will, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. With no disrespect to the Chair, it is hard to listen to that waffle over there when there are 470 jobs involved.

Will Deputy Burke leave the House please.

Deputy Raphael Burke withdrew from the Chamber.

The Minister of State, Deputy B. Desmond, to continue.

It is of critical importance to note that after the Minister of State strongly urged the company at the meeting on Friday, 6 November, to go back into discussions with the IDA and with Fóir Teoranta within a matter of hours a liquidator was appointed by the company. In the light of the discussions which had been continuing that came as a considerable surprise to the IDA, to Fóir Teoranta and to the Department of Industry and Energy. Therefore, the fundamental question arises as to whether or not the company have a basic commitment to maintaining their continuation. The Tánaiste has been involved in a number of meetings. I personally met two of the officers of the trade union group concerned. In fact I met them last week and discussed the matter at great length long before the former Taoiseach got himself involved, or any other Deputies, in that regard. I personally know the trade union officers concerned. I have a considerable interest in doing my best to assist this company.

I can assure the House that the Minister for Industry and Energy is now doing his utmost — as we have been doing for the past three or four weeks — to ascertain what can be done to bring about a balanced package which is one that the IDA can stand over. The IDA have been perfectly happy to date with their package——

I hope so.

——a package which Fóir Teoranta can stand over, and Fóir Teoranta have been perfectly happy with their response to date in that regard, a package which would ensure that this organisation will continue a viable operation. I can say here that Fóir Teoranta are still willing, are able and do have the financial resources to assist this company but there must be a commitment, particularly on the part of the managing director of the group, to try to keep the company going. There must be some such commitment because — I can finish with a figure quoted here — the consultancy report said the company required a £2 million injection in capital equipment.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn