Deputy Corry to-day gave notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Questions Nos. 87, 88 and 89 on to-day's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate—Cork Harbour Dues.
The actual position in reference to these matters is that last February or March I got in touch with some people who were anxious to start an industry in the south and, after examination, they decided to start it in Cobh. Since then negotiations of various kinds have been going on, and we came up against what I might term several snags. One of the main snags was that you had a penal system of harbour dues obtaining in Cork port which definitely was prohibitive in respect to any industry of the type we contemplated starting there. For instance, the harbour dues on fertilisers in the port of Dublin are 1/4 per ton, but on the same fertilisers the harbour dues in Cork are 2/9¾ per ton. On the 180,000 tons of stuff which we visualised bringing each year into Cobh, the differential against any industry of the kind started in Cobh, as a result of these penal tariffs, would be £12,750. That is more than any industrialist would dream of facing.
If he starts the industry in Dublin he can immediately commence operations with an advantage of £12,750 more than if he started the industry in the town of Cobh. Unfortunately the Cork Harbour Commissiners who managed to get control of the harbour of Cobh, have used their position there over a very long number of years to prevent any development in Cobh. Cobh has been treated as the Cinderella and no development was allowed there. Any proposals for development anywhere below Blackrock bend were immediately set upon by the harbour commissioners.
Some six weeks ago I wrote to the chairman of the commissioners putting the position before him and asking that a small committee, consisting of members of his board and members of the Cobh Urban Council, might come together and endeavour to iron out this problem. No reply has been received to that communication since, though the harbour board has met, I think, on several occasions since. Apparently it was not considered worthy of a reply. The next development was a resolution passed by the Cobh Urban Council asking to have separate harbour dues charged in Cobh as against Cork, seeing that the reason for the high harbour dues in the port of Cork is that the river up along from Blackrock must be kept dredged for the city merchants and quays must be built there also for the city merchants. Any development that has been carried on for the past 25 or 40 years has taken place above the Blackrock bend in the stream instead of in the harbour.
I put up the case as fairly as I could on these matters to-day. The matter is completely within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce seeing that his only reply to me was that what was done was done by an Order of the previous Minister in 1941. If the previous Minister made an Order in 1941, I can see no reason why the present Minister cannot change it in 1950, in view of the completely changed conditions and in view of the fact that, unless this change takes place, Cobh is going to lose an industry which would give employment to between 200 and 300 men, an industry which would also mean a reduction in the cost of fertilisers for the farming community. Unfortunately, under the previous position as regards fertilisers in this country the manufacturers need not care what harbour dues were charged on their imported materials because the cost was directly passed on to the unfortunate farmer. The farmers had unfortunately no representatives on these harbour boards. They were deprived of any representation on them, carefully excluded from any representation. This has led to the anomaly that while the coal interests were represented there, they were able to get away with dues of 10d. a ton on coal as against 2/9¾ a ton for fertilisers. Whilst the milling representatives were represented there, they were able to bring in a ton of wheat at 2/6 a ton harbour dues, but the old farmer who wanted a ton of fertilisers to grow that wheat at home had to pay 2/9¾ per ton harbour dues for the fertilisers. You had that antediluvian method of fixing harbour dues. As a matter of fact, the manner in which things are carried on down there would remind one of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves.
You have a certain number of interests represented on this harbour board, and it is a matter of "he is not going to put dues on my coal to-day, he is not going to put dues on my wheat to-morrow, and he is not going to put dues on my timber the day after." The only person upon whom increased dues can be put is the old farmer, who has no representation there. They are therefore piled on. That is the present position, and that is why I ask the Minister to take action in this matter.
I am sure the Minister is as anxious as I believe he is to see industries started and flourishing in this country. If he is anxious to see unemployment in Cobh wiped out by a decent industry being started there, if he is anxious to see some competition in the fertiliser industry, he will now take the necessary steps and at least put Cobh, as a site for an industry, in the same position as Dublin if that industry were established there. That is all I am looking for. I am not looking for impossibilities. If our scheme goes ahead, under present conditions the Cork Harbour Commissioners would get £24,750 as against the £12,000 which the industry would have to pay if it were started in Dublin. If the Cork Harbour Commissioners are prepared to bring their dues down to the same line as the dues in the port of Dublin, they will get £12,000 a year harbour dues out of this industry, and the devil give them more. That is my case in a nutshell, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to take action on that now.
The Urban Council of Cobh are prepared at any time to meet any committee appointed by the Cork Harbour Commissioners and to go into this matter with any official of the Minister in charge, to thresh the matter out to see if we can come to an amicable arrangement.
I see no justification for the position that a ton of fertilisers that is worth about £3 10s. in the raw state should pay 2/9¾ while a ton of coal pays only 10d., just because there are two members representing the coal interest on the harbour board and no representative there of the farmers. It is a scandal. It is unfair and unjust. That is my case in a nutshell.
The Minister said here that the matter should be addressed to the harbour commissioners. It was and it is because the harbour commissioners remained silent, either mute of malice or mute of contempt, that I was obliged to raise the matter here because industrialists will not wait forever for something to be done. Then he said that the only source of revenue available to the Cork harbour authority is derived from the tonnage rates on cargoes loaded and discharged. Granted, but why penalise a harbour like Cobh and a town like Cobh just because facilities must be provided ten miles upstream, in Cork? Why penalise the town? Why keep the town there in the position of having no industry, no employment, being at a dead end? As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the town of Cobh is not a market town. It is not a town where the agricultural community come in from both ends, as is the case in any other rural town. It is situated in a peninsula, if you like, having nothing to depend on but whatever industries are there, unless they depend on tourism or something of that description. That is the actual situation there.
On that account, the late Minister started Irish Steel Holdings there, for the relief of unemployment and, thank God, they are now giving employment to over 380 men. Further industries are needed. It is a rather sad case for a person who works hard for nine or ten months endeavouring to get an industry for his constituency, as I have worked, to come up against a stone wall like this, all for the benefit of a few sharks, so-called industrialists or so-called tradesmen or merchants in Cork City.
I want an end put to that position and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is sufficiently alive to the occasion and sufficiently aware of the crying need for a decent industry in the town of Cobh, to remove these restrictions now and to give us an opportunity of going ahead and getting a decent industry in Cobh.
The Order fixing the rates on goods entering Cork Harbour was first made under the Cork Harbour Act, 1933. That was varied by a 50 per cent. increase under an Order made in 1940. That increase was amended to 125 per cent. by the Harbour Rates (Cork Port and Harbour) Order, 1940 (Amendment) Order, 1941. The effect of these Orders was incorporated in the Harbours Act of 1946, and since that date the charges fixed have remained the same. These charges were fixed taking into consideration the financial position of the harbour. For this purpose, I should say, Cobh and Cork are regarded as one harbour and the harbour authority can charge lower rates if they wish so long as they charge the same rates to all importers. They are not required to approach the Minister on the matter, but it is not within their powers to charge lower rates in Cobh than in Cork. They have got legal opinion to this effect.
The position is that, with one exception, no representations have been made about the charges which are at present effective there. The representations in that case were made a good many years ago and, although the representations were made by a firm importing artificial manure and phosphates, there are some rather significant figures which show that the charges have not prevented an increase in the quantity of fertilisers, artificial manures, and so forth, imported.
In 1939, which might be regarded as a normal year, pre-war—the greater part of the year was normal—there were 37,907 tons of artificial manures imported; in 1946, 26,273 tons; in 1947, 37,026; in 1948, 59,808; and last year it had gone up to 74,238, so that the charges to which the Deputy refers have not prevented the farmers from getting artificial manures in increasing quantities.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows the reason.
It is significant that they are using larger quantities of manures in recent years. There has been a very substantial increase in the quantity. The figures show that it is just double what it was in 1947 and I have no doubt that the increased prosperity which the farmers, whom the Deputy represents, are now enjoying enables them to provide themselves with these manures. Since the Deputy became a member of the Cobh Urban Council, although I understand the Deputy is not a resident of Cobh——
Has that got something to do with it?
I am aware of that. The Deputy, after some activity, succeeded in qualifying.
Is not he entitled to represent his constituents here?
Nobody is denying that he is.
The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to browbeat him into not doing it.
The Deputy moved a motion in the Cobh Urban Council requesting the Cork Harbour Commissioners to reduce the goods rate and tonnage rate on vessels discharging cargo in the lower harbour. Since then the harbour commissioners have been advised that they would not be acting within their powers in charging different rates for vessels using the lower harbour and other vessels.
When was that reply given?
Which reply?
The reply you have just read.
It is dated 5th December.
The reply did not reach the Cobh Urban Council yet.
It has reached the Department of Industry and Commerce.
The position is that the harbour rates have not in any way militated against the importation of fertilisers there, and they have been the subject of only one complaint, made a good many years ago, in fact, as far back as 1940, or shortly after it, when the Order was published.
I do not think the Deputy has any case which can be based on the quantity of fertilisers imported through the port of Cobh. It is true that the rates are somewhat high, but the finances of the harbour are in a position that requires them to reduce an overdraft. They are succeeding in effecting a reduction and I have no doubt that when the harbour authorities succeed in achieving a satisfactory financial position they will consider any representations made.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to consider the position of the industry that is to be started there—to consider whether it is to be started or not?
The suggestion the Deputy makes about the lack of farmer representation on the harbour board is not a matter in which the Minister has any function. The position in regard to appointments to the board is laid down under the 1946 Harbours Act and the members appointed have been appointed according to that Act.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the cattle trade representative has attended only once in the past four years? He is supposed to be representing agricultural interests.
I have no doubt the Deputy can use his influence to secure that those who represent the farmers on the board will discharge their obligations.
There is nobody representing the farmers. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is prepared now to consider if this industry is to go to Cobh or not? I suggest this industry cannot go to Cobh with these dues against them. Is he going to take that into consideration now?
The Deputy is entitled to ask a question.
I am asking a question.
I cannot understand how any persons who want to import fertilisers can sustain the case that the charges are operating against them, because the quantities imported have increased substantially each year.
The quantity increased substantially because, when the war was over, we had, thanks to another Government besides this one, manurial credits got from wheat we drew during the emergency. But that is not the question. This is a question of whether an industry handling something like 180,000 tons of raw material for the manufacture of fertilisers is to be started in this country or whether we are going, as we have done during the past three months, to scour Europe for fertilisers at any price.
That is a rhetorical question.
That is the basis of it and that is why I want to know if the Minister will remove this restriction.
Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he realises the difference between completely manufactured artificial manures landed, a costly material which, perhaps, can stand a high harbour due, and raw rock, which is only a raw material and which is to be the basis of what Deputy Corry hopes will be the finished product for the farmers? Will the Parliamentary Secretary not point that out to the Cork Harbour Commissioners and ask them to interview either himself or some of his officials and will he point out to them that in charging these heavy dues they are destroying a revenue-producing asset— a new factory in the harbour of Cobh?
I quite understand the difference between rock and manufactured phosphate. I would like to point out that rock is charged at only half the rate of the manufactured commodity. No representation has been made by anyone, with the exception of the Deputy's question to-day, since 1940, or after the Order was made.
The monopoly can pass on the money to the farmers and they do not give a hang. Gouldings do not give a hang what they pay, because they can pass it on. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will hear more of this, and before the holidays, too.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 13th December, 1950.