The Minister said last Tuesday in the course of his introductory speech that in 1963 great success attended the efforts of the Industrial Development Authority to attract industry to this country. He said that during the year 34 new industries had been attracted and each of them had foreign participation and that these new projects which had gone into production involved a total capital investment of over £7 million and had an employment potential of some 4,200 workers. He also mentioned that during the previous year projects involving a capital investment of £10,000 and upwards numbered 44 and that the total capital investment of these was estimated at almost £9 million and the estimated employment potential ranged from 2,100 to 6,300. He mentioned other projects numbering 32 in course of construction and which would provide employment for about 8,600 people.
I do not approach the Minister's statement with the wild enthusiasm one would expect if one were to accept these figures. I am not impugning the Minister's integrity or his belief in the statements he made, but I should like to draw to his attention the fact that the rosy hopes held out for many of the industries which he has assisted in all good faith have not materialised. One industry in the constituency adjacent to mine, in Bantry, was heralded as an industry which would give employment to 200 people. I am referring to the Flatley industry. There were photographs of the factory in the newspapers with the caption that 200 were to be employed there. The situation at the moment there is that fewer than 20 people are employed. I know that some eight or nine months ago, at most 40 people were employed. We have all seen statements this week in regard to redundancy at the Potez factory in Galway and I think the Minister will agree that there is some cause for scepticism on my part and on the part of the ordinary public regarding statements in respect of industrial potential.
As a result of statements made here by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dillon, last week, on the Verolme Dockyard and in view of the statements made here last July when the Minister introduced the Supplementary Estimate for £999,000 for the same company. I think there is an imperative need for further investigation of the organisation of the Verolme Dockyard Company.
Following Deputy Dillon's speech here last week, the vice-president of the parent Verolme company in Holland, in referring to the sale of the ship "Amstelhof", is reported in the Cork Examiner of 19th June as saying that when the vessel was sold, the Verolme company suffered a considerable loss. This is a very remarkable thing because Lloyd's List and Shipping Gazette of 25th February last announced the sale and mentioned a figure of well in excess of £1 million being involved. Lloyd's Shipping Gazette is not the sort of newspaper which engages in wild speculation. The Minister will appreciate that anything it publishes is published as a result of investigations by qualified people in the shipping world.
If we are to believe that the ship changed hands somewhere in the ocean at a figure of well in excess of £1 million, and if we are to add to that the figure of £350,000 which all the members of this House and all taxable citizens in the State have already contributed to the Verolme Dockyard, it is very hard to believe the statement of the vice-president of the parent Verolme Dockyard Company in the Hague. However, if we are to believe the statement, another consideration arises which calls for the most stringent examination by the Minister because on 4th September, 1963, the week before this ship was launched, the Verolme company issued this statement:
The ship will be delivered to her Owners at the end of the year——
That is, 1963:
——and in service will be managed by N. V. Reederij, Amsterdam, who have secured a long-term charter of the ship.
When a ship is let on charter, the charter must take one of three forms. The first form is a voyage charter; the second is a time charter; and the third is the demise or what is often called a bare boat charter. The Verolme Dockyard, as in their statement, decided to let this ship out on a long-term charter. From that it can be reasonably concluded that this is the final type of charter I mentioned, that is, the bare boat charter. In such a case, the cost of maintaining the ship in good repair, of keeping her in class with her classification society, the classification society of Lloyd's Register, would fall to the charterers who would also pay the cost of the bunker fuel, the cost of loading and discharging the ship's cargo and all port expenses. In other words, the responsibility of maintaining the ship and paying all the charges devolved entirely upon the charterers as if they were the owners of the vessel. In addition, the charter hire rate would be determined by certain financial factors which the shipowners would have to take into consideration, such as the prime cost of the vessel, interest on money involved and, especially in the case of a long-term charter such as this, the allowance in respect of depreciation and wear and tear over the period involved.
I do not know why, if the Verolme Dockyard found they had to sell this ship at a loss, they tore up this very valuable charter document which they themselves announced they had before the ship was launched. If we are to believe what the vice-president said last Thursday in Amsterdam, that is exactly what happened. These people had this very valuable charter document and they tore it up and sold the ship at a loss. There is a duty upon the Minister to inquire from the Verolme Dockyard why exactly they did this, because it could not commend itself to anybody as a sensible economic practice. I doubt if the ship was ever built for the Netherlands Freight and Tanker Company which was an offshoot of the Verolme company, and the Minister should ask the company if, in fact, this ship, the "Amstelhof", was built for the Verolme offshoot or was built directly for the company which is now allowed to purchase it on its first voyage to Vancouver.
It is a remarkable coincidence which should strike the Minister and possibly will strike the public, that this ship was named the "Amstelhof". Her name was predetermined naturally before she was launched and when prefabricated parts came to the Verolme Dockyard, they were imprinted with the name "Amstelhof" to indicate they were going into the ship in question. We are told now the ship was built for the Netherlands Freight and Tanker Company and was to be managed by N. V. Reederij, Amsterdam. This company has a fleet of nine ships already and this remarkable coincidence emerges that each of these nine ships, like the "Amstelhof", has the prefix "Amstel" to its name. Lest the Minister should think I am misleading him, I shall give him the names: "Amsteldiep", "Amstelhoek", "Amstelkroon", "Amstelmeer", "Amstelmolen", "Amstelsluis", Amstelstad", "Amstelveen", and "Amstelveld".
I do not believe the people who are alleged to have purchased this ship in the middle of the Atlantic would at any time have agreed to have a ship with the name, almost the trademark, "Amstel" built and put on the high seas unless they knew beforehand she was to be bought by them. The Minister should inquire from the Verolme Dockyard how this amazing coincidence arose, if, in fact, the Verolme Dockyard were not building this ship for the company to which they now allege they sold it in the middle of the ocean for a sum which is looked upon by Lloyds as being well in excess of £1 million.
Another matter I think the Minister should investigate is the statement of the vice-president of the parent Verolme company when he said in The Hague on last Thursday, June 18th, that no orders could be had on the world market for the Verolme Dockyard and so it was decided to build a vessel in the Irish yards to the account of one of the Verolme companies. Is that the future of the yard, that it must go on taking in its own washing in order to survive and that it cannot receive any orders on the world market? It is remarkable that the ship which is now under construction at the Verolme Dockyard, in respect of which we must give another £350,000, is being built for a company which was very recently formed. That is not my opinion: I am quoting from an interview published in the Cork Examiner of Thursday, September 12th, 1963 with Mr. Magnus Jones, who is assistant Secretary of Commerce of the Liberian Government and secretary of the board of directors of the national shipping line.
The remarkable thing about the Liberian national shipping line is that it was very recently formed, according to Mr. Magnus Jones himself. It was formed very shortly before September 12th, 1963. That line, as I think was already mentioned here, is owned by three different interests. The Liberian Government own 50 per cent.; Verolme own 25 per cent; and an Israeli company own another 25 per cent. I am not a bit surprised that Mr. Magnus Jones mentioned on the same day that it was his first visit to Ireland and that he had been favourably impressed by the country and its friendly people. Very few visitors here got the golden handshake Mr. Jones received when he arrived here to see the keel of his ship being laid.
I should like the Minister to understand that I am not being deliberately obstructive in this matter but that I am in conscience expressing the doubts which must arise in the mind of any reasonable man when he regards this whole organisation. I do not want anybody to stand up here afterwards— although I doubt if I can prevent them from doing so—and say I want to kill this industry which was founded in a constituency adjacent to my own and which gives much employment in my constituency. I am sorry it falls to my lot to speak on the matter at all and I would gladly forbear from doing so but for the fact that I feel impelled to speak by the facts which have been brought to my knowledge.
When I think of the money which has been, or will be, made available to this company, I feel that many industries of a more durable nature could have been founded in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies for half the cost and that they would now be giving more gainful employment of a more general type to larger numbers of workers. We find many people in my constituency and in the constituency of some other members of the House who are here at the moment in this awkward dilemma, that they have acquired a skill in shipbuilding to the exclusion of all other skills and they will find employment in anything else impossible or at least very difficult to obtain, except in this highly-specialised type of shipbuilding which goes on in the Verolme Dockyard.
Unfortunately, we are faced with the accomplished fact but I think the Minister should investigate to the fullest what I would describe as the extraordinary conduct of the Verolme Dockyard since it was founded. The circumstances in which it was founded were rather adverse. That was stated before on 18th July last year. Most of us on this side of the House felt many other industries could be selected instead of shipbuilding in 1958 when the outlook for shipbuilding generally was at its very lowest. We then doubted the wisdom of the Government's decision and everything that has happened since must tend to explode the myth in which many people believed that the Minister for Industry and Commerce at that time, now the Taoiseach, is the greatest industrial wizard of all time in this country. I do not think any prudent man would have encouraged the setting up of the industry in question.
There is one thing I might be permitted to mention at this stage and I should like the Minister to deal with it. The Minister told us on 18th July last year that there would be a subsidy of £650,000 in respect of the first two ships. That would be an average of £325,000 each for the ships. He went on, and as far as I can understand what he said, he said in respect of the following three ships, that is, the third, fourth and fifth ships to be built at Verolme Dockyard, there would be a commitment of £570,000 by the Government in respect of them. I refer to the Official Report of 18th July, 1963 volume 204, No. 9 at the end of column 1390 and the beginning of column 1391 where the Minister says:
The maximum commitment, which represents percentages reducing from 15 per cent to 10 per cent of the contract prices amounts in all to £570,000 for these three ships.
The three ships he was referring to were ships three, four and five to be built at Verolme Dockyard. If that were so, it would come out at an average commitment of £190,000 in respect of each ship. If instead two of these ships will cost us £350,000 each, or £700,000, that is most disquieting. I may be wrong and I think it is a matter that the Minister should clear up when replying to the debate.
There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of anybody on this side that the Minister indicated to the House that as the workers at Verolme Dockyard became more skilled, as more expertise became evident there, the subsidy required from State funds would be accordingly reduced. That has not happened: the subsidy has gone up and that appears to be the situation. I ask the Minister: must Mr. Verolme go on forming companies like the Liberian national shipping line to take in his own washing and build ships to keep him going in the Cork Dockyard? If that be so, the sin lies on the head of the Minister. When the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is now Taoiseach entered into commitments on behalf of the State with Verolme Dockyard, he must have forseen the position or if he did not, he should have foreseen it, and if he did not foresee it, he has no right to claim that he is the industrial expert he claims to be.
He should have foreseen the gloomy prospect which now emerges for the dockyard. From the beginning, it has been made very plain that it was an ill-fated venture. I know, and I think the Minister knows, at least one other industry in Cork which is looking for assistance and which has been giving employment to quite a large number of people. It has in recent times got something from a Government source. As far as I can make out, about £6,309,000 of the State's money has been made available to this venture, Verolme Dockyard. This money could have given help to a considerable number of other industries. You could have given employment, with this amount of money, to many more than the 850 people who are employed in the Verolme Dockyard.
It was a sorry day when this venture was started. I regret very much that the people who are employed there might find themselves, at some stage, with their employment in jeopardy or might find themselves in the position that they will have to offer themselves as workers of Verolme Dockyard, not in England, not in America but somewhere in Holland, Brazil or somewhere else to avail of the skill which they have obtained at our expense. That was another eventuality which should have been foreseen.
I only hope at some stage that the hopes which the Minister held out here on July 18th last year in regard to the dockyard will be realised and that at some future stage it will become an industry which will be self-supporting and will give back to the people of this country some recompense for the immense assistance which has been given to it by the Government. I should be horrified to see this industry closing down. I should be equally horrified if every ship built in this dockyard results in a loss to the State of at least £350,000. I should be still more horrified if the suspicious circumstances which surrounded the launching and the subsequent sale of the "Amstelhof" should follow every time a ship is built in the Verolme Dockyard.
I have made a case which I think the Minister should answer. The history of the Verolme Dockyard in time should teach the Government a lesson that any industry of that nature should be very fully investigated, not alone before it is set up but all through its career. I know and I understand very well the difficulties the Minister might find in that regard. I have said this before, and I repeat it, that if there is a case to be made for it, any industrial organisation which receives assistance from this State should be in the position that its affairs can be openly investigated, or at least investigated by a Committee of this House. Any ordinary industrial organisation which issues a prospectus, which goes into business and which obtains voluntary subscriptions from the public by way of shares and payment for shares has to answer to its shareholders for what it spends its money on. It seems illogical to me and quite intolerable that an organisation which does not look for voluntary capital, such as is solicited in the prospectus of a company which does, but receives involuntary subscriptions from the pocket of every taxpayer in this country, should be in the position that its affairs cannot be investigated by anybody.
Every citizen who pays tax in this country is an involuntary shareholder in the Verolme Dockyard and is an involuntary shareholder in every other company for which the State gives a grant. The ordinary people are entitled to the same consideration as the shareholders of a public company enjoy. I agree with the Minister that it might discourage certain organisations from coming here and looking for State aid. If they do not want to come under the terms I suggest, I consider they are not worth having. Any company which is ready to trade decently and take decent advantage of the capital which is provided by the State should be in a position to say: "Look, as far as we are concerned you can investigate everything we do down to the last penny and down to the last article we send out of our factory and you will not find anything wrong".
The very fact that the Minister says it is not in the interests of the company or in the interests of the State that the private affairs of this company should be investigated is inciting every one of 57 different varieties of other companies to come into this country and to get hold of the people's money. What is there to hide if the company is going to make good use of the money provided by the State? It has become a sort of convenience that such matters should not be investigated.
I would ask the Minister to take the lesson of the Verolme Dockyard and the lesson of the vessel "Amstelhof" to heart and to make it quite clear to people who come in seeking our largesse that the money is being provided only on consideration that the company will be open to investigation by this House in the name of the people who sent us here. In that way, I believe we will not have people who had perhaps been convicted in Great Britain coming over here and getting assistance from the State to form companies. I believe we will still find some companies coming over here to assist us with their expertise and knowledge and we will get a better type of company coming over here than those who came here previously.
Some of those companies made statements from time to time about redundancies and other prognostications and said that next year everything would be much better. We have found in the past that instead of 200 people being employed in some of these industries in three or four years' time, there were only 20 people employed. If we take proper precautions with some of these companies coming in here, we will not have the Minister coming into the House saying there is likely to be employment for 600 workers when full production is reached. We will not have him saying that the industry is only starting and 40 people are now employed. After some time, we will not find that instead of going up, it went down to about 20 workers.
I do not suggest for a single moment that when the Minister came in here last week and gave us figures about the potential employment in these companies, he was trying to deceive us I am quite sure he had the figures correct but I would be very interested if this time next year he would make reference to volume 211, column 128, of the debates for Tuesday, 16th June, 1964, and told us what exactly was the position in regard to the figures he gave us last Tuesday. I doubt very much if the figures he would give us then would have any relation to the actual figures he gave us last Tuesday.
