Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1983

Vol. 340 No. 8

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Verolme Cork Dockyard.

18.

asked the Minister for Industry and Energy if he will provide funds from the Exchequer to Verolme Cork Dockyard this year; if so, how much; and if he will make a statement on the future of the yard.

A sum of £2.2 million is being provided this year in respect of a shipbuilding subsidy for the Panamax bulk carrier under construction at Verolme Cork Dockyard. The question of further State assistance for the yard is currently being considered by the Government and a statement as suggested would not, therefore, be possible or appropriate at this time.

Is the Minister satisfied that the viability of Verolme Cork Dockyard is intact for this year and the following year? If so, is it not incumbent on the Government to provide enough Exchequer financing to make sure they keep going?

Again, the position with regard to the yard is difficult. The Government are aware of the financial position of the yard and are giving consideration to the matter. I do not wish to go any further than that at this time.

Ceist Uimhir 19.

Is the Minister aware that 100 more workers got notice yesterday in Verolme Cork Dockyard? Will he use his good offices to see that the B & I Line send their ships to be repaired in Verolme Cork Dockyard rather than going to Liverpool? Also, is there any news from him about the two ships that until lately were to be built in Verolme Cork Dockyard?

The question of redundancies at the Verolme Cork Dockyard is primarily a matter for the company. With regard to B & I repair work going to Liverpool, this again is a matter for decision by that company, which is an independent trading company, and I am sure that their decision will be based on tenders and price comparisons. With regard to the placing of tenders, I am not aware that the last Government placed any orders in the dockyard.

To keep the record straight, the last Government placed the order for the Panamax carrier, in case the Minister does not know that. Would he accept that the State is a 49 per cent shareholder in Verolme Cork Dockyard and as such has an interest in what is happening to the workforce in the company, despite what he has just said in reply to Deputy Ahern? The State is a 49 per cent shareholder and surely the Minister has an interest in what happens to the workforce. To say that it is a matter for the company is a bit too bland.

Primarily the engagement of employees by the company is a matter for itself. Of course, I have an interest in it. The present Panamax bulk carrier is being completed at the yard.

To keep the record straight, the order for that was placed by us, by the previous Government, not by the present Government, and that for the naval ships was placed by us also.

By a previous Government, not the previous Government. The Deputy who was formerly a Minister here will appreciate the delicate financial situation of the dockyard, that he was as concerned about it as I am and that it is a matter to be considered by Government.

Is this another example of the lack of interest of the present Government in the Cork area? Not only the dockyard but Irish Steel, B & I, every company in Cork is being decimated.

That is an argument, not a question. Question Time is now over.

It is two minutes to 3.30 — or three minutes.

I am going by that clock there. We will now move to the next item.

I would like to ask for a written reply to Question No. 22.

With your permission, Sir, could I raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the Private Notice Question which was disallowed yesterday?

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy but would like to say to the Deputy, in case of any subsequent misunderstanding, that there was an arrangement, a sort of gentlemen's agreement, with one of the Minister's colleagues yesterday about another question which could not be taken yesterday.

Which Minister's colleague? We are not Ministers.

Sorry, the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Jimmy Leonard.

None of our watches indicates that it is 3.30 p.m..

It is a minute-and-a-half to 3.30 p.m. It may be that the clocks were wished forward because of the difficulties under which the Minister of State has been labouring for the past 45 minutes.

I am surprised at Deputy O'Malley. If Deputies wish me to take another question I will do so. Question No. 19.

Top
Share