Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 May 1996

Vol. 465 No. 5

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tallaght (Dublin) Plant Closure.

Mary O'Rourke

Ceist:

1 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the sequence of events and meetings that led to the announcement of the closure of Packard Electric; the contacts, meetings and correspondence he has had with General Motors prior to and since the announcement; the progress, if any, that has been made in acquiring the Packard plant and funds for the retraining of the workforce; and if he will make a statement on the current outlook for the Packard Electric workforce. [9936/96]

Mary Harney

Ceist:

15 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the efforts, if any, being made by his Department to secure the Packard Electric site at Airton Road in Tallaght, Dublin 24, for future potential industrial projects in the locality. [9946/96]

Mary Harney

Ceist:

28 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if he will report on the deliberations of the Tallaght task force that was established in the wake of the announcement that Packard Electric is to close; and the timescale set for the completion of its report. [9944/96]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 15 and 28 together.

In response to Private Notice Questions on 30 April, 1996 by Deputies O'Rourke and Harney, I detailed the sequence of events leading to the announcement of the closure of Packard in July 1996, including meetings with General Motors and Delphi Packard management. On 30 April I sought and was given approval by Government to establish the Tallaght task force which I launched on 1 May 1996. The task force has been vigorously and energetically pursuing its remit to formulate an action plan in response to the announcement of the closure of the Packard plant by the end of July 1996.

The terms of reference of the task force, which is representative of a broad cross section of interests with a very strong local Tallaght dimension, are as follows: to make proposals and to advise the Minister, in response to the situation in Tallaght arising out of the announcement of the closure of Packard, on: replacement industry-industries being located in the area which can utilise the Packard premises and workforce; steps necessary to assist local suppliers and sub-contractors who are facing loss of business; assisting Packard workers in such areas as career change, training, retraining, job search and enterprise; supporting local SMEs to expand, including the possibility of incentives for employment of ex-Packard employees; and such other matters arising out of the closure of Packard and related to the situation of Tallaght as the task force may determine.

The task force has held four meetings to date and has established two subcommittees to examine urgently issues relating to job skills and training, industry, enterprise and infrastructure. It envisages the submission of a report prior to the closure of the Packard plant in July next. This report should address the key issues outlined in the task force's terms of reference, including the upgrading of skills and retraining of workers and the attraction of alternative industry to Tallaght.

I understand that discussions are continuing between IDA Ireland and Delphi Packard and General Motors on the use of the Tallaght plant and site for alternative industry. A successful conclusion to these discussions would be a major boost in providing a very valuable infrastructural resource for the attraction of industry.

I met last evening with the unions at Packard at their request to hear the outcome of two meetings that have taken place to date between the company and unions. The unions expressed their frustration that there has been no improvement in communications and that the orderly resolution of the present situation presumes that relevant information will be made available. I would expect that discussions between the parties will commence under the aegis of the LRC next week.

I accept that the Minister of State went into some detail in reply to the Private Notice Question about contacts and meetings. However, I am asking him to do me the courtesy of repeating the detail because one loses track of many matters in the heat of a Private Notice Question. In particular, will the Minister of State detail who from his office, or that of the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton — both elected politicians and officials — was at the meeting with the Taoiseach? I understand the management met with the Taoiseach on the day of that hasty, damaging and dramatic leak. In answering that, will the Minister of State tell me if he and his officials acquiesced to the decision to announce the plans on the Wednesday or Thursday?

The attendance at the meeting with the Taoiseach included myself, senior officials in my Department and senior personnel from the IDA, including the deputy chief executive of the IDA — the chief executive was in the Far East with the Minister, Deputy Bruton. The question of our acquiescing to the announcement was not an issue. Mr. Battenberg, the president of the company, had already informed me at the meeting prior to the meeting with the Taoiseach that the company had made this irrevocable decision and that he and his entourage were flying to Germany that evening directly from the meeting with the Taoiseach. One presumes that was to talk to the European management in Germany and that they would, from there, set up a meeting with the trade unions at the plant to advise them of their decision and their response to the case we made to him at 10 a.m. on the Thursday. Our acquiescence was not sought.

That is not a response to the question I asked. I asked if the Minister of State acquiesced with the way it was agreed. In other words, was it agreed or stated at that meeting how the company proposed to make the announcement of the closure?

We urged in the strongest possible terms that the communication to the workforce of the very disturbing news which the company had imparted to us ought not to be delayed. We urged that it should be communicated as speedily as possible. We did this, very conscious of the fact that we were heading into another holiday weekend. Serious announcements in respect of the future of this plant over the past couple of years have almost invariably been made on such weekends. The company's response was that they had to go to Germany for their own internal discussions, and the soonest that could be arranged for was 10 a.m. on the Thursday.

Can we move on to another question as almost half the time available to us for dealing with priority questions has been devoted to this one? This is clearly to the disadvantage of the remaining priority questions.

I will ask a brief supplementary question. I am sure the Minister of State is aware that many people have said the very hurtful and brutal release of this information came from his office. What are his comments on that?

I dealt with this, as the record of the House will show, in reply to Private Notice Questions on 1 May. I am quite satisfied that did not happen. It is clear that, along with the workers, the other loser in the manner of its communication was the Government. I made clear on the last occasion that the way such a far reaching decision for the livelihoods of 800 people and their families was communicated was reprehensible.

Barr
Roinn