I regret having to raise this matter here to-night. The sole reason which prompts me to do so is that the Department of Defence and its various Ministers from time to time have, in plain language, done nothing and there seems to be some tradition in that Department that to do anything to help the nation would be doing something which would run counter to tradition. I must apologise, too, because I was not able to bring in here all the volumes with the different replies given to me by different Ministers. I have brought in only some of them.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Haulbowline Dockyard Apprentices.
The Deputy made a fair effort.
I will take, first of all, 12th February, 1953:—
"Mr. Boland (for the Minister for Defence): Proposals for the establishment of a scheme for the introduction of apprentices into the naval dockyard at Haulbowline have been considered by my Department. As consultations with the different interests is necessary, some further time must necessarily elapse before a decision can be taken."
On 18th February, 1953, the question was again raised:—
"Mr. Traynor: ...Particulars of the proposed apprenticeship scheme at the naval dockyard at Haulbowline will be communicated to the vocational authorities at Cobh as soon as a decision has been taken in the matter."
In July, 1953:—
"Mr. Traynor: The question of the establishment of an apprenticeship scheme in the naval dockyard, Haulbowline, is still under consideration. I am aware of the anxiety of the authorities in the vocational and technical school at Cobh in the matter and I shall keep that aspect in mind."
On 10th November, 1953:—
"Mr. Corry asked the Minister for Defence if he is now prepared to give particulars of the apprenticeship scheme for the Naval Dockyard, Haulbowline, as promised to Cobh Vocational School in his Department's letter of 31st January, 1952.
Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor): The question of the establishment of an apprenticeship scheme in the Naval Dockyard, Haulbowline, is still under consideration.
It will be appreciated that until such time as consultations with the different interests involved have taken place it would not be possible to give particulars of the scheme.
I am endeavouring to have consideration of this matter expedited."
Twelve months elapsed and on 3rd November, 1954—I had to give the new Minister time to settle down before I tried to get any information out of him—I raised the question again:—
"Mr. Corry asked the Minister for Defence whether he is aware of the anxiety of students in the Cobh Technical School in regard to the admission of civil apprentices to the Naval Dockyard at Haulbowline; and if he will state whether a decision has yet been taken in the matter and, if not, when it is likely to be taken.
General MacEoin: I am aware that the Cobh vocational and technical school authorities are anxious that civilian apprentices should be admitted to the naval dockyard at Haulbowline. This question is still under examination in connection with other related matters, but I regret I am not at present in a position to say when a final decision is likely to be reached.
Mr. Corry: Is the Minister aware that the first question in connection with this matter was asked in May, 1947?
General MacEoin: So I heard.
Mr. Corry: Is the Minister aware that at various stages ever since, during seven long years, the Department of Defence have been considering this question and apparently negotiating everything in connection with it? Surely it is not to go on for seven more years and surely we will have some finality in the matter?
General MacEoin: Might I remind the Deputy that I said I was examining the matter and not the Department, but that I am not yet in a position to say when a final decision will be reached? I hope, however, it will not be seven years more."
In June, 1955:—
"Mr. Corry asked the Minister for Defence whether he has yet completed his examination of the proposal to admit civilian apprentices to the naval dockyard at Haulbowline, and, if so, with what result.
Minister for Defence (General MacEoin): Examination of the question of admitting civilian apprentices to the naval dockyard at Haulbowline has not yet been completed."
In November, 1956:—
"Mr. Corry asked the Minister for Defence whether he has yet reached a decision in relation to the proposal to admit civilian apprentices to the naval dockyard, Haulbowline.
Minister for Defence (General MacEoin): I regret that I am not yet in a position to reach a decision on the proposal referred to by the Deputy."
That is a litany of the activities of the Department of Defence and the activities of three different Ministers for Defence to date. Apparently, we have not heard the end of it yet.
Haulbowline Dockyard and civilian apprentices there have been a tradition as far as the people of Cobh are concerned. Large numbers of men from Cobh were taken in each year into the naval dockyard there during the British occupation. Fine tradesmen were turned out. Some great Irishmen were turned out. As a matter of fact, I can state this: over 3,000 springs and heads for hand grenades for the Irish Republican Army were made in the naval dockyard at Haulbowline by these apprentices. Now that our own Republican Navy is there, surely we are entitled to ask that at least they carry on that tradition. How many decent mothers in Cobh have seen their sons go out into the world unprepared to earn their livelihood, when they could have been trained as skilled tradesmen in that dockyard, had the Department of Defence done its part? That is my complaint.
Does it take 11 or 12 years, from 1947 to 1958, for a Department of State to decide whether or not they will train a handful of apprentices? Is that what we have come to here? I allowed the Minister a long 12 months to consider this matter. It is a matter which could have been settled in any three meetings of the Department concerned. It is outrageous and a fearful waste of public money. Those people are in a position to train apprentices in a way they cannot be trained elsewhere. We can get apprentices taken in Irish Steel and Rushbrooke dockyards, but the Department of Defence do not want anybody to train in this country. To-morrow or after, when they are short of skilled staff, they will send over for the dregs of the British Navy and put them in charge there. That will be due to the fact that our own young men are not trained in that job which has been a tradition in Cobh for over 100 years. It is a dreadful state of affairs and I suggest the Minister should make some move on in the matter.
I am sorry Deputy Corry found it necessary to raise this matter on the Adjournment again. I am afraid the answer which I gave him to-day is all the information I can give him. The reply may not have been satisfactory from Deputy Corry's point of view, but it is a factual statement of the position: that it has not been found possible to reach a decision in this matter.
The matter is not as simple as Deputy Corry appears to think. In my opinion, these recurring questions which Deputy Corry puts down appear to show a belief on his part that there is some reluctance on my part and on the part of my predecessors to introduce a scheme for the training of apprentices in Haulbowline. Deputy Corry appears to hope, by conducting a war of attrition by means of parliamentary questions and debates on the Adjournment, eventually to wear down this opposition by the Department of Defence to the proposed scheme. I want to assure Deputy Corry for what it is worth—I do not know whether he will accept it or not —that there is no such opposition in the Department of Defence. I am keenly interested in having the naval dockyard at Haulbowline utilised to the best possible advantage in the public interest. I will co-operate to the fullest extent possible in any effort to utilise the naval dockyard in any way that will benefit the community always bearing in mind, as I must, the needs of the naval service.
With regard to this question of the training of apprentices, I personally am in favour of having apprentices trained here in the naval dockyard. I can appreciate as well as Deputy Corry or anybody else the desirability of providing increased opportunities for the technical training and education of our boys. If there were anything I could do to provide those increased opportunities for technical training, I would do it. When I say in reply to the question that I have not found it possible to do so, that is the position. Even if this scheme were to be gone ahead with, Deputy Corry will appreciate that the number who could be taken in and trained would be very limited indeed. There would be no question of providing an outlet for a considerable number of the youth of the surrounding district. If the scheme does go ahead, the number who will be catered for will be very limited.
The fact of the matter is that the difficulties which arose when this scheme was first considered have not yet been solved. I am not yet in a position to give a forecast of when they will be solved. I realise that Deputy Corry's reason for raising this matter on the Adjournment was that he was not satisfied with the reply, but, as I have stated, it is the only reply I am in a position to give to him. I should like to satisfy Deputy Corry, but I can only repeat the factual reply I gave him to-day in answer to his parliamentary question: that it has not been found possible to reach any final decision in this matter. That is not due to any inactivity or opposition on my part, or on the part of anybody in the Department of Defence.
Would the Minister consider putting this genius who is not able to come to a decision for 11 years into a room and giving him no grub until he gets results? I do not want to be coming in here in 30 years' time asking him about this.
The Deputy may only ask a question at this stage.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.50 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 24th April, 1958.