Before Deputy Creed commences perhaps, on a point of information, the Chair will inform us as to whether the time lost for this debate by way of the overlapping of Question Time as well as the Taoiseach's statement and my response to it, will be compensated for.
Private Members' Business. - Cork Harbour Development Plan: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Wyse on 23rd March, 1976:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the Government's continued failure to provide adequate funds towards the implementation of the Cork Harbour Development Plan.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute the following:
"notes that a sum of £500,000 towards the cost of certain harbour improvement works included in the Cork Harbour Development Plan has been provided in the harbour grants subhead of the Estimate for Transport and Power for 1976 which is the largest sum ever provided for by any harbour authority in one year and requests the Government in due course to consider what further funds may be provided for the Cork Harbour Development Plan".
—[Deputy Hegarty.]
The full complement of time for the debate will be allowed.
I wish to speak briefly to the motion and to the amendment in the name of the Minister for Transport and Power. The matter under discussion is not one which concerns Cork solely. Neither is it a matter of regional concern only because when the harbour has been developed fully the benefits therefrom will accrue to the entire country.
I do not agree with the motion because certain developments have taken place in the Cork harbour area during the past two or three years and there has been a considerable amount of investment there, particularly in industrial development. For example, there is the NET development at Marino Point, Cobh, a proposal which involves capital investment of more than £60 million of which approximately £20 million will be by way of local expenditure. During the course of the construction of this enterprise there could be jobs for as many as 2,000 workers and the subsequent permanent employment content is expected to be in the region of 500 jobs.
This, in my opinion, is a very considerable development in the Cork area. The establishment of this project will also result in the saving of millions of pounds each year in the country's balance of payments because it will provide the situation where we do not have to rely on imports inputs for our fertiliser industries. I hope once this is developed that cheaper fertilisers will be available on the Irish market for our farmers. This is a considerable investment to which I would like to lend my full support.
The bringing of the natural gas ashore from Kinsale Head and the distribution of it to the users in the Cork Harbour area will involve a total expenditure of approximately £30 million of which £10 million will be spent by An Bord Gais. I wish to thank the Minister for Transport and Power for establishing the headquarters of An Bord Gais in Cork city. I believe, as the second city in the Republic, it has not got its fair recognition. I hope the establishment of An Bord Gais here will be the start of other such investments in the second city in the Republic. We hope that this is the beginning because we have the facilities for many more institutions, either State or semi-State which could have their headquarters in Cork. This would be an ideal location for the Minister's Department or for the Department of Industry and Commerce. While we are speaking of sending the Department of Lands to Castlebar and the Department of Education to Athlone this would be an ideal time for the Minister to use his influence in relation to Cork because the facilities are available there for this type of development.
We also have the development of oil and gas exploration. The number of jobs which will become available here will be considerable. I would like the Minister to give this his full support. Cork County Council have already approved a basis for this exploration work. One can imagine the amount of employment which could be provided with the erection of rigs. We also have the establishment of a new ESB station fuelled by natural gas at Whitegate and the considerable extension of capacity in the Marina station in Cork city is very welcome. I wish to compliment the Minister on those developments.
We have the development of the Verolme Cork Dockyard in this area where very considerable employment is given. I understand that the Minister for Defence will be looking for a protection vessel from this dockyard. I hope that any ferry vessels which the B & I Company will require will also be provided by Verolme. Those are very highly labour intensified developments.
When one speaks of the development of Cork Harbour and the subject matter of this debate I consider there are three major aspects involved. There is the provision of land for industrial development, the provision of an adequate water supply for industry, which is very important, and also the provision of harbour facilities. In relation to the provision of land for development the IDA have expended some millions of pounds on the acquisition of the most vital areas of land for industrial development in the Cork Harbour area. The important land bank adjoining the proposed deep sea berthage at Ringaskiddy is held by the IDA as well as a considerable area in the hinterland at Ringaskiddy, Currabinny and Shanbally. There is approximately 700,000 acres of land required for this type of development by the IDA. There is also land in this area zoned under the Cork county development plan as land for industrial purposes.
As far as the development of Cork Harbour is concerned land is already acquired. There was a difficulty in acquiring land by the IDA in this area. It was expensive to buy, and it was difficult to acquire. The local people had their roots there and negotiations to get that land were tedious and difficult. However, I am glad there is a pool of land available for any type of industrial development which may come our way and also that the IDA have acquired land for industrial development in places like Ballincollig, Little Island and Carrigtwohill, which is also important in the Cork Harbour area. This part of the strategy for the development of Cork Harbour is, therefore, well progressed and land is now available for further industrial development.
This is tremendously important as far as any future industrial development of this area is concerned. It is also worthy of note that this progress in industrial development has been made over the last few years by the establishment of such factories as the Smith Kline & French (Ireland) Ltd. chemical factory at Curraghbinny, which is giving some very valuable employment. There are the Data 100 and Topps factories at Ballincollig, the Mitsui, Swissco, Pepsi Cola, General Mills and other such factories at Little Island. There is also the project at Marino Point. All those industries are giving very valuable employment. This is very essential to the Cork area at the moment.
I say to those whose names are on this motion, deploring the lack of progress made in the development of Cork Harbour or in the implementation of the Cork Harbour development plan that all this is done at a time when we have the worst and most serious economic recession that the western world has seen in 50 years. None of those industries cannot be pulled out from under the armchairs in the Department of Transport and Power or any other Department. It should be noted that this progress is made and that the Government under difficult circumstances have come to grips with this problem. The development of the harbour reflects credit on the Government. I would like to urge on the Minister for Transport and Power that we proceed as quickly as possible with the full implementation of the Cork Harbour plan.
The second ingredient as far as the development is concerned is the provision of an adequate water supply for industry. While Cork county, like many other counties, has a high average rainfall, the provision of a water supply for anticipated industrial development in the Cork Harbour area will need colossal expenditure. We have seen this development taking place where a supply of water is taken from the Inniscarra area to Cork Harbour. This will be almost all for industrial purposes. In the eighties we could have a situation where an adequate supply of water will attract industrialists for the processing of their particular materials or industries. An adequate water supply will have exactly the same effect as coal and steel had over a century ago in places on the Continent. I believe an adequate water supply will be one of the main requirements for industrialists visiting this country in the years ahead.
I give full credit to everybody concerned in this development, Cork County Council and the harbour developers, where steps are being taken under this scheme to provide 50,000,000 gallons of water taken from Inniscarra right through to the Cork Harbour area. Almost the entire supply is earmarked for industrial purposes. The first phase of this scheme is costing £17 million to take the supply to Douglas where it will be branched off to give a small supply for private use and for industrial development in the Cork Harbour area.
I should like to say to the Department of Local Government that the costs for this scheme are colossal. The Minister for Local Government has made a certain amount of money available for the first phase. The difficulty involved here is that the loan charges and the costs of maintenance in the initial period will be such a burden on the southern area of the Cork County Council that it will be impossible for the ratepayers to meet the demands that will be levied as a result of the cost of this scheme. I should like the Minister for Transport and Power to use his influence with the Departments of Finance and Local Government to ensure that money is made available speedily for implementation of the scheme. If money is not available, in the south Cork area the rate will be increased by £9 in the £ for sanitary services alone. It would be unfair to levy that charge on the ratepayers in the southern area.
This is not a Cork problem. It is not only the people of Cork who will benefit solely from the development of the Cork Harbour area. The country as a whole will benefit, and it would be unfair to saddle the ratepayers of the southern part of this county with the extra costs imposed because of the payment of loan charges.
Once we start discussing the development of the Cork Harbour plan we must embark on a wider field of discussion. If we attract industries to the Cork area we will be faced with the problem of improving facilities at the airport. I might add that until the present Minister took over nothing was done to improve facilities there but now some improvements are being carried out.
Another factor is the development of the harbour facilities and this is about to be done. It is important that we develop and dredge the harbour to ensure that it will be able to cater for the heavy type vessels we expect will use it. I expect this is a matter to which the Minister will direct his attention. I am glad that the largest amount of money ever for this type of work—£500,000—was made available this year by the Minister for Transport and Power. The material that will be dredged from the harbour area could be used for some kind of land reclamation or for the building up of the embankment. This is an important matter that should be considered.
There is a major job to be carried out in the harbour area, particularly around Ringaskiddy, but it will be well worth while. In the last two or three years there have been developments in the Cork Harbour area. We are ready for industry to start and the Industrial Development Authority should be doing their utmost to attract these concerns. It will take at least two or three years to provide the heavy type of industry and to build the factories we have in mind. The development of the plan could proceed at the same time. It took two or three years for industries such as Pfizer and others to get off the ground. The IDA should be trying to attract industries to the Cork Harbour area. The Government and the Minister for Transport and Power are doing a good job and they are doing their best with regard to the plan for Cork Harbour.
The motion put down by Fianna Fáil deplores the lack of progress made by the Minister. The Government have been in power for three years but half of that period was during a very difficult economic situation that was not peculiar to this country. One must ask what was done in the 16 years prior to the Government taking office towards the development of the Cork Harbour plan? Had Fianna Fáil Deputies a lack of confidence in their own Ministers with regard to this matter? I know that the Minister for Transport and Power who is present will ensure that progress continues to be made. I am pleased with the progress that has been made to date.
The last speaker has given credit to the Government for the NET industry and for the ESB plant which is to be erected. I would remind him that it is not quite fair to give credit to the Government for those industries. He should remember who started the exploration which led to finding the natural gas. It was started in the late fifties by the then Fianna Fáil Government and, in particular, by the late Séan Lemass. He had the foresight and the confidence to bring Ambassador Oil into this country to carry out exploration work. They were the forerunners of Marathon who have made the gas find. When the Bill was brought to this House some people who had been former Ministers in the previous Coalition Government treated it as a laugh and treated Ambassador Oil as a laugh. Now, Deputy Creed is giving credit to a Government who have been in office for three years for the setting up of the industries to which he referred. The credit should be given to the men who started the exploration and who were laughed at then. NET or the ESB would not be erecting any new plants if we had not found the natural gas as a result of the exploration work.
Of course it is good business to give access to natural gas to NET but it is questionable whether it is good business to give access to the ESB. We must ask ourselves if it could be put to more profitable use for the nation when it is realised that nearly 70 per cent loss is incurred by using natural gas to generate electricity. This is not my figure; it is the figure issued by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. It is important that natural gas should be used for the greatest benefit of the nation as well as for the people of Cork. As Deputy Creed correctly pointed out, this is not a local issue. It is a national issue and all of us should remember this.
We put down the motion for the purpose of highlighting the importance of the matter and for the speedy implementation of the Cork Harbour plan. We are well aware of the national importance of this matter. We had plans such as this in the past. When in Government we set up various bodies to deal with industrial promotion—the Shannon Free Airport Development Company is an example we can all be proud of because it has added greatly to the economic growth, life and employment of the nation. The Government should take the bull by the horns and provide the necessary investment for the Cork Harbour plan, a plan which will benefit the country. The implementation of such a plan would be a great incentive to foreign industrialists.
In their wisdom the Government put down an amendment to our motion. In my view that amendment is like the action of the old lady who brought a kettle of boiling water with her when she went for a bathe in the sea off the west coast. She wanted the boiling water to heat her own little swimming patch. The provision of £500,000 towards the cost of the work at Cork Harbour will be as ineffective as the kettle of boiling water was when the old lady poured it into the Atlantic Ocean. Irrespective of what the Minister says or the excuses he puts forward, the Government recognise that there is too much leeway to make up in the political sense in order that there would be a political advantage in the short term from the spreading of what has become a notorious exercise in State financial and political lubrication or spending. The Government have repeatedly shown that they have only the capability to think and act in the short term. The past years have been a constant exercise in political expediency and it would be foolish of anybody to expect that the qualities and abilities lacking in the past three years will suddenly show themselves now. At this late hour, with the economic life of the nation on its last gasp, I should like to offer some suggestions which could be used as a starting point in a movement away from the economic mess the Government have created.
The proposals of the Cork Harbour Board offer the opportunity of harnessing the great work force available in the south of Ireland. We should finish with all these paltry dole payments and associated subsistence. If we accept that the primary source of wealth is labour, then let us harness what is available in the labour pool for the constructive and worthwhile development of the country. We should utilise the opportunities for retraining our unemployed in conjunction with a practical proposal such as this. Such a proposal is sure to create something lasting and will prove of great value instead of the continued fostering of a possible source of resentment amongst those lucky enough to be still employed but who are being heavily taxed in an effort to maintain the social welfare payments.
To talk about unity in our country is one thing but we must first create the means of unifying the people in this part of the island in a common purpose for the benefit of the country as a whole. We have had emergencies before and they caused a great mobilisation of our manpower in the defence of the nation. The present economic climate demands the same amount of emergency action and the mobilisation of all our forces—in this case our manpower—to defend our economy. Every penny available for spending by the Government should be directed towards constructive development for the good of the country. No Government should be afraid to lead because it is their responsibility to lead the nation. Attempting to treat the symptom of the terrible disease of unemployment is not going to prevent the disease; it will not prevent the spread of the epidemic. We must develop a new treatment to get rid of the sickness itself.
We know it is difficult for a Government which is staggering from one crisis to another to stop taking action which is motivated by expediency but, nevertheless, the nation demands honest leadership and is entitled to it. The strategy of the recent budget is already in tatters although we were led to believe it would lead to economic recovery. The drop in the consumption of alcohol and use of fuel oil reduced the expectancy of the revenue increases we were told about by more than £30 million since the budget. The diminishing external value of sterling has increased the servicing and repayment cost of the foreign borrowings engaged in by the Government and other semi-State bodies by £35 million. The cost of this wastage is lost but the value of successful investment can prove profitable even yet and that is the opinion of most people.
By implementing the Cork Harbour plan we maintain it will prove a profitable exercise for us all. In any proposed industrial development it is recognised that we must provide the infrastructure in order to entice foreign industrialists to get involved in our economic life. We must do this if we are to tempt them to come here. It is not enough to be giving tax holidays and other incentives. The Cork Harbour plan provides a readymade opportunity for the Government to provide this type of infrastructure. The plan was well thought out and entailed a lot of work. It is a golden opportunity for the Government to provide the necessary infrastructure which will lead to more employment and a reduction in the dole queues. The implementation of the plan will provide employment which in turn will provide more revenue for the Exchequer instead of the prolonged social welfare payments which are becoming more a part of our economic life.
There were opportunities in the past of providing the investment in the Cork Harbour area which would not only have maintained existing employment but would have created a lot of new jobs. The opportunity that comes to mind was the shipping order of Irish Shipping Ltd. That order was placed with a Japanese firm and that caused great damage to the Cork Harbour area. There was great emotional play made about an order for £250,000 worth of furniture by a semi-State body with a foreign firm but surely an order which might have meant the spending of £13 million in the Verolme Dockyard was of greater importance to the nation and to the dockyard. That order would have maintained existing employment and led to the creation of new jobs instead of maintaining employment in Japan. It is only right that we should keep reminding the Government of this great mistake by the Government and Irish Shipping Ltd.
The Government can justify the placing of an order with a foreign firm in certain ways but an order of that magnitude should have been placed with a home firm in order to reduce the size of the dole queues. It is very important that we create more employment because if we do not become more productive and have increased employment we will not go ahead as a nation, our economy cannot succeed.
We all remember that in the 1960s in particular when our economic life began to grow and more investment came into the country we were beginning to move towards a state of full employment. We were able to provide jobs for people, if not in their own county at least in their own country instead of providing those jobs in Coventry, Birmingham, New York and other places. New capital came in to the country for investment. New industrial know-how came into the country. People from North America, England and the Continent of Europe set up industry here. At that time we did not have a great infrastructure. We had to provide it. Now we have a plan and are more advanced in our planning. We have plans drawn up in advance for the provision of what is required in order to attract industrialists. Here is one glowing example of a measure that should be adopted. The provision of the necessary infrastructure for incoming industrialists is as big an attraction as the tax holiday and the grants given by the IDA.
Recently, the Taoiseach went on tour in America and one of his primary exercises there was to tempt more capital investment and more industry back to this country. How much easier would it have been for him if he were in a position to say that the necessary infrastructure was already provided.
It is not right to say that when a proposal is activated is time enough to set up the infrastructure. I have had some experience with foreign industrialists in my part of the country. People came in to see what was available. Potential investors and industrialists look for road structures and what we can provide by way of infrastructure. This is a major consideration. They know that in due course they can negotiate whatever grants are available and they are aware of the tax holidays for exporters. To them the infrastructure is equally important. I know some of these who having surveyed the area have decided against coming here. They went to other countries. The fact that we had not the necessary facilities which were available in other countries was a serious consideration.
We cannot afford to lose potential investors. We should not be at fault. We should not be seen to be at fault in losing a potential industrialist. We have lost some very big ones such as Alcan and one particularly big one in Cork and another in Clonmel and there have been one or two proposals in my area which are not now coming. We should not be the people who are at fault. We should do everything possible to help to create employment instead of borrowing more and more and paying out more and more in social welfare. We should put some of this borrowed money into work such as this which would prove productive and would contribute to the economic welfare of our people and which would create employment for them at home and would reduce dole queues.
The plan is of great importance because of the off-shore development which has been mentioned and which makes it all the more imperative that the infrastructure should be provided. The Government cannot ignore this fact. It is more important now because we know we have natural gas and we are hopeful that we will strike oil if some people have not already struck oil—this we are not certain of as yet; at least we are not told about it.
We should implement the Cork Harbour plan and plans should be made for the Shannon Estuary and places in the west of Ireland because there is a great possibility of finding natural gas and, indeed, oil off the west coast and we will need shore installations if we are to develop these for the benefit of the economy, for the creation of the off-spin industries. The Government have the principal duty in this respect. They are the people who have their hand on the till. They are the people who can provide the necessary money for the implementation of such a plan. It would be far better if those on the other side of the House were to prevail on the Government to provide the necessary money than to be congratulating the Government on the setting up of industries as a result of the finding of natural gas, which would have come about irrespective of what Government was in office.
This is not a local Cork issue. It is a national issue. Increased investment in industry must be regarded as a national issue. There should be concentration on the question of deep water facilities. We are fortunate in having deep-sea ports. The Shannon estuary is one. Such deep-sea ports are not readily available on the Continent of Europe, as has been acknowledged by experts who have been investigating the possibilities. With the prospect of finding more natural gas and oil off our shores it is of importance to provide the necessary facilities at these port areas in order that we would be ready to develop these natural resources when they are found. It has not yet been firmly established that there is oil off the shores in commercial quantities. Therefore, we should provide the necessary infrastructure for foreign industrialists. It is as important to do this as it is to have Ministers going all over the world talking to potential industrialists.
Surely it is not too much to ask the Government, in the light of all the money that has been borrowed and all the money that has been spent in the last three years, to provide money for productive purposes which will be repayed many times over by productive industry and all that goes with it. It is not too much to ask the Government now to provide these moneys, instead of providing, as I have said, the kettle of boiling water that the old lady brought to the west coast when she was going swimming and to which we compare the £500,000 the Government are now providing which amounts to nothing in the light of the total plan. It is like giving a sop to the Cork Harbour people, the council, the corporation and all the people involved.
We put down this motion in order to highlight the importance and the urgency of implementing this plan, not only for the benefit of Cork but for the benefit of all the southern part of the country. By doing so we will, as was pointed out by previous speakers, provide employment for people who are now on the dole queues and that employment will, in turn, provide more revenue for the Exchequer instead of having the present situation where a diminishing number of employed are providing more and more taxation in order to keep those on the dole queues in receipt of social welfare benefits because they are unfortunate enough to be unemployed. We must get away from the social welfare mentality and put all the moneys available to the Government into the creation of productive employment instead of borrowing more and more money for longer and longer dole queues.
These dole queues have been growing longer and longer over the last three years. It is sad to think that people are going around actually bragging about the increase in social welfare payments. Of course, we should have social welfare benefits for those who need them. How much better it would be for those involved and for the morale of the country generally if we were in a position to brag about increased employment which would ensure the economic growth of the country in the context of the European Economic Community. The only way in which we can brag is by increasing employment opportunities.
This Opposition motion was tabled by a number of Deputies. It reads as follows:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the Government's continued failure to provide adequate funds towards the implementation of the Cork Harbour Development Plan.
To that motion an amendment was tabled by me to the following effect:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute the following:
"notes that a sum of £500,000 towards the cost of certain harbour improvement works included in the Cork Harbour Development Plan has been provided in the harbour grants subhead of the Estimate for Transport and Power for 1976 which is the largest sum ever provided for any harbour authority in one year and requests the Government in due course to consider what further funds may be provided for the Cork Harbour Development Plan".
We have had four speeches from the Opposition on their motion, the most extraordinary being that delivered by the last speaker, Deputy Barrett. He ranged far and wide and his comments did not seem to have any bearing on the Opposition motion. He talked about the 1960s and jobs for the people as against the paltry dole system. Does he mean those on the dole are not getting enough or does he think they are getting too much? Does he think they should be cut off and get nothing at all, these unfortunate people who are out of work?
The fact that there is unemployment in this time of recession is not unique. Deputy Barrett spoke about the rise in prices since the Arabs cut off the oil supply in 1973 and the effect of that on the world. In all the countries in the European Economic Community Ireland has been more successful than any of the other eight in keeping unemployment figures down. Our unemployment figure has increased less than it has in any other country in the EEC. Deputy Barrett spoke about the farseeing 1960s and the investment that was brought in and the jobs that were provided. The fact is on 1st January, 1970, there were fewer people working than there were on 1st January, 1960. Fewer were working at the end of the decade than at the beginning.
The evolution was that Fianna Fáil exported their problems. They sent the people to London, to Birmingham, to Coventry, to Manchester, to New York, to Melbourne and Adelaide in this alleged period of economic advancement. It was the greatest scourge perpetrated on the people since Cromwell and the Famine. It was deliberate Government policy to send our people away to be supported by other Governments. So much for the forward thinking and progress. It was one of the most disgraceful decades. But this is what the Deputy would like us to copy. I am quite confident that those who are working will accept responsibility for ensuring that those who are not working will be able to remain in their own country instead of emigrating to ghettoes in the back streets of the big cities of the world. They will be kept here among their own in the environment in which they were born and bred and in which they want to stay. That is the policy of this Government and it will continue to be the policy of this Government. I have no doubt but that this country is capable of maintaining twice its present population. One cannot do everything overnight. One cannot undo 16 years of Fianna Fáil misgovernment and the effects of the oil crisis on the whole western world in the last three years, in a short period.
We are providing for the Cork Harbour Development Plan exactly the sum of money the Cork Harbour Commissioners said they required in 1976. In fact, it is slightly more. The Government have not moved away from the Cork Harbour Development Plan. It is not their intention that the plan will never come to fruition. At the moment because of budgetary constraints what the Government are saying is that the sum of money provided is all that can be provided this year. The next budget will be formulated in the autumn and come to a conclusion sometime in November or December. Then we will see.
Deputy Barrett was not here in the 1960s and possibly he does not know that the Cork Harbour Development Plan is not the first harbour or estuary plan. In the 1960s there was a development plan for the Shannon estuary. That was knocked by the Government of the day. They said there could be no possibility of providing money in advance of development. I believe that was the subject of the longest answer to a parliamentary question ever given in this House. The Deputy can look up the record.
Deputy Wyse last night quoted Deputy Lemass and spoke as if Deputy Lemass would not adopt this niggardly attitude being adopted, as he alleged, by the present Government. He said he was farseeing and looked to the future and he would have provided money for these things. He was the great saviour and the creator of the industrial expansion. Here I want to quote from the Second Programme for Economic Expansion published in 1964 when Deputy Lemass was Taoiseach. Paragraph 47 reads as follows:
Harbours should, in principle, be operated as commercial undertakings and should be self-supporting. There should be no question of State grants for harbour undertakings either to meet the cost of maintenance or to carry out improvements required by new or expanding trade, except in special circumstances such as where the establishment or expansion of a particular major industry requires improved harbour facilities. It is desirable that any State assistance and, indeed, any investment at such harbours should be related to the specific and identifiable requirements of new trade or industrial development and should not be undertaken merely by way of providing general facilities in the hope of attracting new and unspecified business. It is equally desirable that the expected return on the investment be measured as accurately as possible and that an appropriate local contribution should be a condition of any State assistance.
That was the policy laid down by the leaders of the Members opposite over ten years ago and it has not been changed. It is the policy being pursued now by this Government and when Members opposite come in here looking for money and deploring the inadequacy of the funds being made available they either do not know the policy laid down by their own party or they choose to ignore it for some petty local political consideration. Now Deputy Wyse and Deputy Healy are genuine politicians and it is hard to be tough with them. I do not think they were indulging in petty political considerations and so I presume they acted out of ignorance and that they did not appreciate what had been the position during all their term of office and which has not changed since. In regard to the Cork Harbour development plan——
We shall hear something about it at last.
I sat here through four Fianna Fáil speeches without interrupting once, and I think I am entitled to the same consideration. I know that when the pin is going under the nail, Deputy Fitzgerald has to interrupt; he has to shout and rant and try to break up things. Therefore in one way I welcome his interruptions, knowing I am being effective in what I say.
The Cork Harbour development plan is an exceedingly good plan. There are a number of factors in this. There is the water, the land and the harbour facilities that are necessary. These are things the Government are working towards. I am not so familiar with the Cork County Council's progress as regards the water pipes, but I do think the compliments that have been paid to the council are well deserved, in that they have been exceedingly far-seeing and progressive in this regard. They deserve all the help and encouragement necessary because of their commitment to this.
The most necessary requirements of the plan are the harbour facilities themselves, and the most important of those facilities is the dredging. Deputy Wyse spoke last night about dredging for 150,000-ton ships and the necessity for providing for these huge bulk carriers that are coming from around the world. The Cork Harbour Commissioners have never asked for that. The dredging that is supposed to be done this year will be to the depth the Cork Harbour Commissioners require. This is what they are looking for. Deputy Wyse is a member of the Cork Harbour Commissioners and he will know from the documentation he has got that this is so.
Deputy Creed made a point which I will look at. I am not sure whether it is valid, that the dredging which is being done at the moment should be used as an infill behind an embankment on the Ringaskiddy site. I have not had a chance to examine it in depth but from a first look at it I think it may not be feasible. There are two types of dredging required here. One is the dredging of the spit and the bar at the harbour mouth and there is the rest of the dredging, the infill for the land at what is called the Ringaskiddy basin which will be pumped dredging in behind an embankment wall. The dredging at the mouth of the harbour and at the spit bank will be of a different type and would be loaded into barges and dropped into the sea. However, I will be paying some attention to this matter.
When the Cork Harbour development plan was first put before the Government, the harbour commissioners and the IDA came to the Government and said the Du Pont industrial concern were setting up a factory in Ireland and certain harbour facilities were needed. On the spot the Government gave a guarantee that any such facilities would be provided and would be available before the Du Pont factory was ready to go into production. That is still the case. Deputy Healy said last night we should look forward because Du Pont may not have changed their minds for all time but only because of the world recession—Deputy Healy used the word "recession"—and Deputy Barrett, when he spoke of Alcan in the Shannon Estuary, said the same thing.
These projects are not scrubbed as far as this country is concerned. We have not heard the last of them. Both of them are there to be reactivated should the world market improve. If those or any other industries come to the IDA land on the Ringaskiddy site where they have 600 or 700 acres then —and I am not saying anything here I have not said a number of times before—the Government will provide the finance to make the necessary harbour facilities available when the factory is ready to go into production. That is as categorical as I can make it. I should say the IDA had a number of people looking at that land on the Ringaskiddy site and not one of the people they have taken down there since Du Pont put their plan into moth balls said that.
The fact that there were no harbour facilities available on the site at the time would interfere with their coming there. I asked the IDA specifically about that, and they said this was so, and there were ten or 12 big industries involved. We are talking about very big industries for that site. Deputy Wyse listed last night the type of industry that would go there. Because of the complexity of establishing these industries we are talking about a leading period of three or four years. The Du Pont project involved four years. Any dredging, reclamation or establishment of jetties needed for such industries can be done in that time. The Government could have provided money this year for those facilities in the hope that some industries would use them, but if they provided that money this year they could not have provided for something else that might be equally important, for instance, the gas pipe line, which is far more important because it is there now. Marathon would have wished that this gas would not be brought ashore until 1979. We have been constantly pushing them for the last 18 months to ensure that gas comes ashore earlier so that the benefits will be available to the people earlier than they would have been in a normal, slow development.
Deputy Barrett said, and I suppose there is a certain amount of truth in it, that it was the farsightedness of Seán Lemass that allowed this exploration to take place, but it is not that that determines it. If there was exploration there and this gas was found, it is the use that is made of it afterwards that can be of benefit or of no benefit to the country. Deputy Barrett said we should not have used that gas for generating electricity. Technically speaking there is some truth in that in as much as you do not get the fullest value from the use of natural gas by generating electricity from it. We must remember, however, that at the time of the oil crisis in 1973-74 we were in a hopelessly overdependent position on imported oil for the generation of electricity. The Government decided that the first thing we should do was to lower our dependence on imported oil as much as possible and ensure that we would be less exposed to that kind of situation in the future. For that reason, we decided that 60 per cent of that gas should be used to generate electricity and 40 per cent for the generation of nitrogenous fertilisers in the NET plant. These are two very large projects. The Government could have decided not to use the gas in the Cork area.
I remember reading a speech by Deputy Barrett some months ago where he criticised the Government for not shipping the gas from Cork to Dublin for use in that area. We made a decision that all this gas should be used in the Cork area in the generation of electricity which will provide more permanent jobs than the 200 temporary jobs Deputy Wyse spoke about. There will be twice as many jobs in the Nítrigin Éireann plant at Marina and another 1,000 jobs during the construction stage. The laying of the pipeline to Cork city, the availability of that gas to the consumers in Cork, the conversion of the Marina power station from oil-fired generation, to gas generation, are all positive immediate benefits to the Cork region and must in themselves attract further industry, maybe even to a far greater extent than the harbour plan.
I am being careful not to say anything here that will leave me open to criticism of being anti-Cork Harbour Development Plan. I am not. It is imaginative, well thought out, correctly costed, and to move towards its fulfilment is the correct strategy from the Government's point of view but we must be conscious of other needs and demands on capital. This year we provided £500,000 necessary for a vital part of this, that is, the dredging to allow big ships to come in. This is the most important part, which could not be done in a hurry. It will allow the plant at Marina to be serviced, it will allow deep berth facilities at Cobh to be served by bigger ships; it will allow the oil refinery to have bigger tankers come in.
An amount of play has been made about the exploitation and exploration of gas and the benefit this will be if the harbour plan goes ahead. The fact is that exploration for gas has been going on in the quays in Cork for five, six or seven years. There is a further site available to Cobh. There are two members of the Cork Harbour Commissioners here today and they know that they have a planning permission and fore-shore licence application from another firm to establish on the east side of Cork Harbour to set up a service base for rigs and platforms. This is outside the harbour plan at Ringaskiddy.
Besides the existing site in Cobh, a site is being made available by the Cork Harbour Commissioners at Tivoli for pipe laying, the CIE site at Cobh, and a deep water berth at Cobh which will allow the servicing of rigs and platforms; there is a further application for the development of a site on the east side of the harbour. I notice Deputy Brosnan has left, but Deputy Hegarty got the message very quickly. From a purely constituency point of view he would be crazy not to realise that every bit of the investment in Cork is going into Deputy Brosnan's and Deputy Hegarty's constituency. Deputy Hegarty knows that quite well. None of the money invested in Cork harbour is going to the south side. The Little Island site is full. Cobh, Marino Point, the oil refinery, the ESB generating station, the new Chelsea base, all are on the north and east sides of the harbour.
On the south the land is there. That land was most difficult to acquire. Deputy Fitzgerald will remember the hooha about that a few years ago. Many people were disturbed when that very valuable land was acquired. I am sure the IDA are as conscious of that land as anybody else, and there will be no possibility of it being given away for any other purpose than that for which it was acquired, that is, for a pulp related industry.
Any industry that comes to the Cork Harbour region I guarantee, as I did previously, that the facilities necessary to cater for that industry will be provided before the industry is in production. The first thing that must be done is to dredge the harbour to ensure that it is deep enough to take boats of a size necessary for these industries without any danger. That is being done with the money we are providing this year.
Deputy Wyse, Deputy Fitzgerald and Deputy Healy were on a deputation from the Cork Economic Development Council which I received. Deputy Crowley, from the Cork County Council, was also on that deputation but I do not see his name on the motion. Is there any significance?
He is not a harbour Deputy.
He is a member of the Cork County Council. We might investigate that and see why his name is not on the motion. The Cork Economic Development Council came to me on the 18th February and wanted to know the present position in view of the dredging of the harbour. The plan was discussed with them. They were told that the dredging was done. They made the point Deputy Creed made here that things were being done in reverse. If the dredgings had been put behind the embankment, it would move towards the implementation of the plan and it would seem to be a more feasible and rational thing to do. That is technically not possible because a different type of dredging is necessary for the Ringaskiddy Basin and that being done on the spit and harbour bar. At the time the assistant secretary of my Department inquired if there was any other means of financing the scheme except by a full State grant. The leader of the deputation, the chairman of the harbour board, said that the present dues would not suffice. He said that the European Investment Bank said that this was the right type of plan for their investment but they must have Government guarantees. He wondered if the Government would underwrite the Harbour Commissioners borrowing of the money over a certain period of time, after which the Cork Harbour Commissioners would repay the Government when they started to earn money again. If the Harbour Commissioners came to me with a proposal which they considered feasible, if they worked out the pros and cons, and pointed out the benefits, costs and the long-term position, I said I would be willing to look very favourably on this.
This is the first time this was suggested and it might be the means of overcoming the difficulties of breaking existing policies while at the same time accepting responsibility locally for the repayment of the loan. They mentioned, too, at that time that they would seek four groups of users who would be prepared to make commitments and I told them that if they did this and could put forward a scheme regarding the financing of the project with the Government taking up the interest on the loans until such time as the scheme became viable, I would be willing to consider their proposal favourably. That was a month ago and I have not heard from them since but perhaps it would take longer than this to devise a scheme of that nature. If, in the meantime, or subsequently, any industry comes to the Ringaskiddy area and seeks harbour facilities I am happy that these facilities can be provided in less time than an industry can be established.
Neither the Minister nor either of the other two speakers from that side of the House have spoken with any conviction here today or yesterday. It was obvious that they were as disappointed with this long-awaited decision as were all Cork people. Towards the end of his contribution the Minister referred to the Government underwriting a loan from the European Investment Bank. In regard to Cork Harbour this would mean merely the underwriting of the future of Cork, of the future of the people of that area and of the opportunities for employment.
This Government and the Minister can be charged, more than anyone else, with procrastination because they have continued to make promises in a halfhearted way regarding the harbour development plan. Their attitude can be compared with a bait dangling at the end of a rod but this is in keeping with what we have come to expect from them. Under a heading entitled "Taoiseach impressed on Cork Visit Harbour Plan gets Big Boost" in The Cork Examiner of 27th May, 1975 the Taoiseach is reported as saying to the Chairman of the Harbour Commissioners:
I can assure you that you have presented a most impressive case. Mr. Peter Barry and myself can report to the Government on the proposals that you have, and they will get adequate and full consideration. It would not be prudent to go beyond that, but if you get that, the outcome will be satisfactory.
Let us compare that statement with what Deputy Hegarty said here yesterday when he referred to the plan and dismissed it as speculation, as gambling and as being irresponsible. This is a plan that was prepared by Cork Harbour Commissioners with the assistance of Cork County Council and Cork Corporation.
On a point of order, I have been misquoted by the Deputy.
That is not a point of order.
The Deputy dismissed the plan as being no answer to the situation but I have not the time now to enter into controversy with him. He went on to say that, possibly, the deep water could be taken farther down the harbour but I shall come back to that later. Obviously, the Deputy, no more than some other people on his side of the House, has not read the plan. The plan has the support of the various bodies in the area—urban councils, chambers of commerce, trade unions, employers' groups and anybody who had at heart the interests of the future of the entire southern region. It is not necessary for me to expound on the excellence of the plan. It was prepared by engineers, economists, ecologists, planners and others, all of whom put much research and study into it.
We are citizens of no mean city or county but on this occasion we, in common with the people of the whole southern region, have been dealt a severe blow. No industries that have been created on one side of Cork Harbour can compensate for the huge unemployment figures in the area. While new industries are being established, older ones are closing daily in the city. To refer to this plan in the context of Cork Harbour only is misleading because it is something that will benefit the whole region. Indeed, it is national in its concept and magnitude especially in the light of future developments off that coast. The approach of the Dublin-oriented Government to this matter is similar to their approach to other suggestions from the Cork area, for example, the Fota issue, UCC, Verolme and others.
The Minister has gone out of his way to say that in relation to the plan a vast amount of money has been made available to Cork this year but let me spell out clearly that approval has not been given yet to this sensible plan, a plan with which the Minister and every Member of this House would agree, with the exception of one Deputy who last evening dismissed it as being a waste of effort and completely before its time.
That is not correct.
The money needed for this venture is not great when taken over a period of four or five years. The dredging operation is required especially at Marino Point. It is part of the overall plan but the Minister is not being totally honest with the House when he gives the impression that the wishes of the harbour commissioners have been complied with. This brings me to the question of the higgledy-piggledy sort of approach of this Government to any positive planning. The first stage of this plan refers to the development of the deepwater facility at Ringaskiddy and although the Minister said otherwise I understood that the dredging could have been used to fill in the area behind that deepwater facility. However, if the Minister says this is not so, I am prepared to accept his word. If Stage one went ahead this year with the approval of the Minister the dredging next year would be in adequate time for the Marino Point project for which it is intended basically to service. The other aspect of it is the overall financing question. Apparently it has been agreed on all sides—certainly at EEC level—that here we have a project qualifying under every single condition as a desirable project for grant assistance from the regional fund. I fully accept that would not meet all the expense on it but the underwriting of it is merely a small request from the Government. It is not enough for the Minister to say here that a policy existed in 1964, 12 years ago. If that policy existed, he will have to look at the position we are now faced with. The Minister tried to misconstruct figures earlier in his contribution. The facts are that more than 116,000 people are unemployed in the country and more than 30,000 school leavers are at present on the unemployment market plus those finishing school in June. If that plan goes ahead, it will in the short term provide employment opportunities and in the longer term the facilities will attract the major industries we want to see attracted to the harbour.
We have the IDA, a Government agency, with the permission of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, purchasing a very large tract of land, which makes them a major landlord, on the shores of Cork Harbour. Steps must be taken to industrialise that land. We have to ensure that some of it is developed quickly in order to provide jobs. Deputy Hegarty spoke last night about the moving of a deep water berth. The Cork Harbour development summary says:
Six locations in the lower harbour were considered for the proposed deep water berths and related industrial estate and the hydraulic implications of the alternatives were studied. Of the areas, only two, namely Whitegate/Aghada and Ringaskiddy could provide adequate backup area and of these two areas Ringaskiddy was chosen for priority development as it had lower development costs and was more suited to a wider range of developments.
Ringaskiddy was chosen. The IDA have the land at Ringaskiddy. Surely the development of that area is extremely urgent. Surely the provision of industry and jobs in that area is also extremely urgent.
The city harbour and water scheme has been referred to. It shows how little homework was done by the Government side of the House when the Deputy who spoke last night referred to the figure of £11 million being provided while the Deputy who spoke today referred to the figure as being £17 million. The position is that during 1974 and 1975 three phases of that scheme were approved by the Local Loans Fund to get water down to the lower harbour area to both Little Island and the Ringaskiddy side. Two stages are in progress. The third has not been signed because the Government have fallen short in their commitments to Cork County Council. If that situation is not rectified, Cork County Council will be like New York city, despite the nice things that were said across the House. There is no planning. There is no control at the top by the Government to co-ordinate the IDA, the harbour authority and the county council development. I call on the Cork Deputies in particular to stand up here and be counted and to say that the Government have not done what we have asked them to do.
I should like to quote from a report in The Irish Times of 16th December, 1975, of a very reliable correspondent from Brussels who referred to the meeting of the Minister for Finance with Mr. Thomson, the Regional Affairs Commissioner, the previous day. He said:
There is speculation in Brussels that the new project which has been agreed will be the Cork Harbour scheme, details of which were discussed in Cork a year ago by officials from the Commission and from the European Investment Bank.
I appreciate the Minister's dilemma and I appreciate the pressures that have prevented him from doing what he has promised to do so often and which he would have dearly wished to do. Our condemnation is not of him. It is of the Government who, on this occasion, just as they have in the past with Fota, UCC and other areas, ignored Cork and have allowed the Cork Harbour Development Plan to go into cold storage. It will affect not only the unemployed at present but the many young people who will, between now and 1980, be seeking employment each year once their school days are over.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 61.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.