Vol. 30 No. 14
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £8,100 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiodfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Costaisí i dtaobh Longlainne Inis Sionnach.
That a sum not exceeding £8,100 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for expenses in connection with Haulbowline Dockyard.
On the last two occasions when this Vote was discussed in the Dáil I was sorry to find from the speeches I heard that I had not succeeded in making members understand what sort of a place Haulbowline is, what we are doing there, or why it costs what it does cost. I propose, therefore, to-day to make a somewhat fuller statement, and the Dáil will excuse me if I go over ground which has been gone over on former occasions. But to-day, besides touching on the history and the present position of Haulbowline, I have also to explain what we are going to do to reduce expenditure and why we have not done it before. Haulbowline is a small island—about 67 acres—partly consisting of made ground on the top of a sand bank in Cork Harbour, near Cobh. The British Government constructed a naval dockyard there and also a military station with naval and military stores. During the European war the dockyard was very fully employed and some hundreds of men found work there and also in the neighbouring privately-owned dockyards of Rushbrooke and Passage.
When the European war came to an end this work began to come to an end also and there began to be unemployment in Cobh and the neighbourhood. In order to avert or delay this misfortune the late Michael Collins on behalf of the Free State Government made an agreement with the British Government by which the British Admiralty kept the dockyard at Haulbowline at full work and the Free State Government paid the cost. This lasted for one year.
It was then decided that the British Government should evacuate Haulbowline and that the Saorstát Government should take it over. This was carried out on the 31st of March, 1923. Of course the preliminary arrangements took a good deal of time and they included a considerable reduction in the dockyard's staff of workmen. It was cut down to what it was thought might be required by the Saorstát Government which amounted to about 90 men, who were taken over. The British troops went out and the Saorstát troops went in. The Saorstát garrison varied in strength from time to time. At its strongest it was about 900 men. Besides infantry it included some special troops of the marine section. For a time the dockyard was pretty fully employed in reconditioning some trawlers which had been purchased for the Saorstát Government and converting them into patrol boats for use in the warlike operations going on at that time.
It was already clear, however, that it was not desirable to keep Haulbowline permanently working as a dockyard under Government management. The vessels owned by the Government are not sufficient to provide continuous repair work for even a small dockyard and Haulbowline is not a small yard. It was designed to deal with war ships and has a dry dock of 600 feet long, larger than those of Rushbrooke and Passage, and it has all sorts of machinery, including large sheerlegs for lifting great weights, and other powerful plant. It is the sort of place which might be useful to a big firm with a lot of miscellaneous work of repairing ships of all sizes but it would not be suitable for the very small amount of ship repairing work which the Government has to give, except at an extravagant cost. Numerous suggestions for using the place for manufacturing purposes have been made from time to time but none of them has assumed a shape which is worth serious consideration. The Government, therefore, at once made an endeavour to lease the dockyard to a private firm. It was advertised in July, 1923, and efforts were made by Messrs Crowley and Partners, who were at that time engineering agents to the Government, to bring it to the notice of any parties who might be interested. No offer of any kind resulted which is not surprising in view of the great depression then existing in the shipbuilding business. It was then specially brought to the notice of Messrs. Furness, Withy and Co., who owned Rushbrooke and Passage yards.
It is obvious that the dockyard at Haulbowline is likely to be more useful if worked in conjunction with those at Rushbrooke and Passage than separately. Messrs. Furness Withy did not make any offer. The question then was whether to shut the place down or carry on for a time at a loss. It was decided to carry on for a time. The reasons for that decision were, shortly, these: In the first place, the garrison remained on the island, though much reduced in numbers, and the chief military hospital for the Cork District remained there up to September, 1927. While they were there we could not shut down some of the expensive services, such as the steam ferry boats to Cobh, which cost at that time about £4,000 a year, and the general electricity supply. In the second place, we could not shut down the island altogether in the sense of abandoning it, because the plant and the buildings, which had cost the British Government very large sums, are too valuable to be allowed to drop into ruin, while owing to their nature and the peculiar character of the island, it would cost substantial sums merely to keep them in repair. In the third place, we had to consider the general position of the ship-repairing industry in Co. Cork and the question of unemployment. Cobh and the neighbourhood had been hard hit by the cessation of war work, but the Queenstown Dry Dock Company, owned by Messrs. Furness Withy, gave intermittent employment at Rushbrooke and Passage. The special facilities available at Haulbowline, the large dry dock, the special plant, and also the oil tanks, which I have not hitherto mentioned, were useful to the Queenstown Dry Dock Company and were from time to time used by them. This use could not have continued if Haulbowline were shut down.
The Government, still making special efforts to keep the ship-repairing industry going, voted out of relief grants a certain sum in the years 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927 to the Queenstown Dry Dock Company as a subsidy in the form of a percentage of the wages paid so as to induce the Company to keep their shipyards open. After this payment had stopped, Messrs. Furness Withy intimated that they did not see their way to keep the shipyard going, and asked for a renewal of the subsidy. This was refused, but, as a concession, the use of the dry dock and plant at Haulbowline, for which hitherto small hire charges had been made, was given free, and also the use of two of the oil tanks, for which rent, up to then, had been charged.
These concessions, although not large in themselves, involved the keeping open of Haulbowline with a competent staff to work it as a dockyard. The reduction of this staff to what is necessary for mere maintenance would in the first place have involved the discharge of 50 or 60 men from Haulbowline itself, with no particular prospect of employment, and in the second place would have made it somewhat more likely that Messrs. Furness Withy & Co. would shut down the Rushbrooke and Passage yards and thus lead to further unemployment.
The position has now changed in several respects. Shipbuilding is somewhat less depressed than it was. Messrs. Furness Withy & Co. have, we understand, disposed of the Rushbrooke and Passage yards to another large firm, Messrs. Beardmore of Glasgow. We hope now to be able to lease Haulbowline either to Messrs. Beardmore or to some other firm, but whether we lease it or not we have decided to cease carrying it on as a Government dockyard. The conditions of employment have improved somewhat in the neighbourhood of Cork City by the establishment of Ford's tractor factory there, and we think our workmen at Haulbowline should now be able to find work elsewhere. Accordingly we are about to close down. If we lease the place, of course we transfer to the lessee the obligation of maintenance. If we do not lease it, we shall retain a small staff for maintenance purposes.
The figures in the Estimates, therefore, represent a transitional period, during which we shall be closing down. Now coming to the sub-heads of the Vote: sub-head A, £9,000, as compared with £12,300 in 1928-29. The expenditure in 1928-29 and previous years was about 88 per cent. for labour and about 12 per cent. for materials; the great bulk is for the wages of the dockyard staff. That staff, as I have explained, will be cut down before the end of the financial year to small dimensions, but we could not when the Estimate was made say how soon it would be feasible to make the reduction or how quickly it can be made, and it was therefore thought desirable to make a provision of £9,000, nearly ¾ of last year's provision.
Sub-head B is a token Vote; we do not, in fact, expect to do any ship-repairing this year, but there might be an urgent case which we could not refuse. Sub-head C—Fuel and Light—is much reduced from last year; naturally when we have closed down the steam ferry, which we shall do about the end of August, and closed the dockyard so that we have no longer to pump out the dry dock, and stopped the supply of electric light, there will be very small expenditure on coal and fuel oil; so that this Estimate is for part of a year only for the full establishment.
If we do not lease the dockyard it will be an economy to purchase a smaller electric generator than that at present in use so as to carry out the necessary pumping and other maintenance work more cheaply. This expenditure will not be necessary if the dockyard is leased.
There is one other point which I think it well to mention, that is the position of the residents on the island. There are at present living on the island about 307 people, men, women and children, occupying 57 dwelling houses, which are the property of the Government. None of these people pays any rent. Some of them are our work people, some are men who formerly worked in the dockyard and who now work elsewhere, and they and their families stay on in their houses on the island because they find it convenient to do so, or because they find it hard to get accommodation elsewhere. The Government maintains their houses and supplies them with water and various small services for nothing, and they have the free use of the steam ferry boats. They also get electricity, for which they pay. When the dockyard is shut down these services will cease. We are anxious to treat these people with all consideration, and not to turn them out of their houses without notice; we are not likely, so far as we can see, to have any immediate use for the houses. But the gratuitous services which may in some cases make these houses desirable residences will shortly come to an end, and it is, therefore, to be hoped that these residents should begin to look out for other places to live in. The very peculiar conditions under which these houses are at present occupied are not such as we ourselves should ever have allowed to become established; we took them over from the British Government, and we have been anxious, as in the case of the workmen themselves, not to produce hardship by abrupt action. Perhaps we have carried our consideration too far; at all events, we cannot, in the interests of public economy, carry it much further.
The Minister's act of contrition has been so sincere that he almost disarms criticism. At last upon this small Vote, the presence in this House of a Party which was determined to see that, so far as it could secure it, the administration of the public services would be carried out on more economic lines than hitherto, has been justified. It is over two years ago since we forced the Minister, I think, to divulge to this House the conditions existing in Haulbowline.
You were not here then.
We were. "Almost two years ago" I said. We then discovered for the first time that the Minister had received a report from a firm of independent engineers which was almost condemnatory in the conclusion which it forced upon the Minister. It pointed out that a large part of the plant in Haulbowline, the upkeep and maintenance of which had been made the excuse for a comparatively large expenditure of public money, was to a great extent obsolete, that the magnificent dockyard about which we heard so much was merely a white elephant, and that no engineering firm of any competency would place upon it the exaggerated value which the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department for which he is responsible have been placing upon it for a considerable number of years. That firm of engineers quite clearly told the Minister to abandon any dreams he had that this particular dockyard would ever become a realisable asset, and, in short, to cut his losses as quickly as he could. We emphasised that point, I think, in February, 1928. We are now in the middle of 1929, and it has taken almost 18 months for the wisdom of our criticisms to bring itself home to the Minister. We now hear he has decided to close down the dockyard. I think it is high time he did decide. I think, in his own words, he has carried consideration too far for those who are living in the houses which were Government property and were rapidly establishing a squatter's title.
Do you agree to close them down?
I do, certainly.
Is Deputy Carey going to vote against it?
I do not see an amendment standing in the name of Deputy Carey or any other Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy proposing that the Vote be referred back for further consideration. Is Deputy Carey anxious that the debate should be adjourned in order that an opportunity should be given him to put down such an amendment? Is he going to vote against the policy which the Minister has announced to the House, or is he going to argue that the dockyard should be kept open, and that this expenditure should be continued in order that the people on that island who do not work, who are not engaged in maintaining the dockyard, but who work elsewhere, who earn their livelihood in other establishments upon the mainland should be treated as privileged citizens in this country, and should be provided not only with houses and water free but should be carried backwards and forwards to and from their work at the public expense? Is that the policy which Deputy Carey is anxious to urge on this House? Is that the policy which Deputy Carey will announce to the farmers in East Cork?
Your policy got its answer there.
Possibly: But I know our policy will find favour with the rest of the country. I know our policy is the only justifiable policy in the present state and condition of this country, and no expenditure of public money should be made which cannot be justified on the strictest grounds of public economy. That is the policy we are standing on in this House, and that is the policy, I am glad to say, to which we have at last converted the Parliamentary Secretary.
Not Deputy Carey?
I do not know who counts the more.
Perhaps the Deputy will be allowed to deal with the Estimate without any further interruption.
Having congratulated the Parliamentary Secretary for adopting our point of view, I do not know that I have anything more to say. I think I have dealt with the matter as fully as possible and that silence is the best criticism we have to offer.
Whilst I regret the necessity for closing down the dockyard and for what amounts to the practical eviction of a number of families from that once prosperous yard, at the same time I do not want to appear as one who, to use a sporting phrase, is having a bit each way. I suggest that the last speaker endeavoured to have a bit each way. It appears to me that if the Minister to-day, instead of having an estimate, as presented to us on this paper, had an estimate for the continuation of the work of maintenance of this dockyard, we would have many of the Fianna Fáil Deputies speaking in support of it. On the last occasion. I agreed that Haulbowline under the then circumstances was not an economic proposition. I realise that to-day it is not an economic proposition. At the same time, I cannot but have a hope, in view of the development of the aerial services and possibly other services, in the very near future arising from the intervention of Mr.——
Aladdin's Lamp.
On account of those things I feel that whilst it might be good economy at the moment to close down these works, at the same time I cannot help thinking that in the long run and taking the long view it would be better policy and economics to continue a maintenance party on the island.
You are having a bit each way now.
I believe that an understanding should be arrived at or arrangements made with some group of financiers, industrialists or capitalists who would take over this yard in view of the possibilities I have suggested. Personally I would prefer to see every industry in this country self-supporting and able to carry on and function without the aid of a tariff or subsidy, but in view of the possibilities which I have indicated, I believe that this would form a very useful site for the manufacture of things required for aerial services. I believe that the cost would be infinitesimal compared with the results that could be achieved in the near future. Assuming for the moment that developments occur on the lines I have suggested and that the Government has to look about for a site, I suggest that here you have a valuable plant and machinery. I quite disagree with Deputy MacEntee when he suggests that most of this machinery is obsolete. I suggest that much of it is quite up-to-date, and were it not for the fact that much of the valuable machinery has been sold as scrap, I think Haulbowline would be a bigger asset to any company who would be thinking of engaging in the industry which I have mentioned.
resumed the Chair.
So far as the families on that island are concerned, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the month of August as the time fixed for the evacuation of the islands by the tenants living there. I think in view of what we all recognise as a very grave problem— the housing shortage—that the evacuation at such an early date should be reconsidered. I think those who live on the island and who have been engaged on maintenance work there will readily recognise that they cannot be continued for a much longer period. At any rate, I would recommend some time later than August to the Minister for his serious consideration. In that connection, too, I would suggest that we have heard from time to time in discussions here the lack of protection off the coast for our fishing boats. Here again, we have a field for activity. It has been said that we have ceased to build ships there. We have ceased to build any kind of craft, but in view of the complaints heard here from time to time, here is one line, at any rate, upon which we might proceed, on a commercial basis, to do something by way of building and maintaining ships of a proper character which could protect our fisheries and fishermen.
I do not want to say much more on this question, except to suggest that the families on the island should get a longer time to prepare for evacuating it. I feel that the Minister should give it his very serious consideration. I do so in the hope that the evacuation will be delayed.
