I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to draw up proposals for the development of ship building and repair at Verolme Cork Dockyard, and as an interim measure in the interest of preserving the jobs of the work force to place immediate orders for the building of a fishery protection vessel and a fishery research vessel.
We have reached agreement on the division of the time between Deputies. I hope this debate will be held in a calm, cool atmosphere with the major concern of all sides being the employment of the workers. The motion calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to draw up proposals for the development of shipbuilding and repair at Verolme Cork Dockyard and, as an interim measure in the interest of preserving the jobs of the work force, to place immediate orders for the building of a fishery protection vessel and a fishery research vessel. The Government have seen fit to amend the motion in a way which scares me. Their amendment states at the end:
to provide subsidies up to the maximum level permitted by the European Commission to enable Verolme Cork Dockyard to undertake and/or complete orders for vessels won on the open market.
This strikes me as saying to Verolme that unless they win on the open market the Government will not give them orders for vessels.
It is ironic that this is the second time I have been involved in such a motion in the interests of the future of Verolme when a Coalition Government was in power. The first time was on 25 and 26 November 1975. We moved a motion then because the Coalition placed orders for bulk carriers in Japan. It is ironic that we should now be asking for a consideration to be given to the acute problem which exists in the shipyard in Cork Harbour. I shall quote what the Minister of the day, Deputy Keating, had to say at column 270 of the Official Report for 26 November 1975:
Let us look at these three interests in order, and if I put them in order, I must put the Verolme workers first. They certainly want security of employment and I do not think there is any division anywhere in the House in regard to our commitment to safeguard that for them. They also want the full range of shipbuilding skills to be developed in that shipyard. They also want a shipyard which is viable, not the obligation of viability in the middle of recession but which is viable by ordinary commonsense criteria in the long term. This is not a place where the Government should be called on to put in money decade after decade.
It is interesting that we have introduced a motion this evening calling on the Government to state clearly their intentions with regard to the workers' future, the skills involved and the major contribution that the shipyard has made to the economic wellbeing of Cork and the surrounding areas.
Cork Deputies opposite know well that Cork city, Passage West, Monkstown, Rochestown and Douglas on one side of the harbour and Cobh and its surrounds on the other side have long been dependent on the weekly salaries from workers in the yard. The skills of the workers are famous throughout the world. The craftsmanship and workmanship can be seen in the major vessels which have been built there over the years, in the repair work which has been carried out through the decades and in the general engineering work which has been a feature of the yard's activities.
The reason we saw fit to move this motion was to indicate to the Minister the acute situation which arises in Cork at present. It is one of the areas which is really suffering from unemployment. The present figure for the city and county is 19,600 unemployed. That is the official figure. One year ago it was 15,100. In Cork city 10,400 people are unemployed whereas only 7,900 were unemployed a year ago. Those figures reveal the reason we are so concerned about the future of the yard. I ask the Cork Deputies opposite to vote for our motion. They will not be defeating or bringing down the Government by so doing but will be telling them to stop before it is too late for the erosion of employment which is taking place in Cork.
The Government amendment states:
... in spite of ... (b) the absence of provision in the Estimates agreed on by the previous administration either for new orders or additional production subsidies...
That statement is incorrect. Even if it was correct, the responsibility lies with the Government to preserve the shipyard's work force. I should tell the House why it is not correct. We prepared Estimates as far back as September/October last year and they were published prior to the year to which they applied. That was the first time that ever happened. It was understandable that there would be contingency provision in those Estimates. We provided a figure of £120 million contingency fund for our capital programme and a further £43 million for equity in State companies. What happened to the £120 million? In the 1983 budget presented by the Minister for Finance in the early months of this year he stated:
In the light of this experience and having regard to the overriding constraint imposed by the need to reduce the Exchequer borrowing requirement, the Government have decided to reduce the Public Capital Programme, as published, by £220 million in total. This reduction includes the deferment for this year of the global contingency provision pending the emergence of projects which would meet the necessary investment criteria. A provisional allocation of £120 million was made by the previous Government for this, but was not earmarked by it for any particular projects.
What is on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister for Industry and Energy is totally inaccurate and incorrect. If he refers to the Budget Statement he will see that the Minister for Finance said that in this House. We are talking about a very small fraction of the £120 million, a mere pittance by comparison with the total. Look at the trauma of the 1,100 people who are employed there. I know that the number has been reduced because of redundancies which took place there last Friday.
I referred to the dependence on the yard of so many people and families on both sides of Cork harbour and city. I referred to the skills in the areas of shipbuilding and ship repair. There are so many angles that one could think of but a shipbuilding industry of that type is of strategic benefit to the country. I will not have any Minister tell me that this company are just another semi-State lame duck. That is not the case. Verolme is an excellent shipyard, but like all shipyards in the western world it is going through a very difficult time because of the recession. Instead of committing several hundred, if not the entire work force, of the yard to the dole queue over a period, the Government should set about establishing a firm and clearcut policy for the future of the yard while providing immediate orders. There are between 300 and 350 workers there who are on notice of redundancy. Some left on Friday last and others are leaving this week. Unless orders are forthcoming quickly there is no guarantee for the remainder of the employees.
I have never supported or encouraged street protests. I do not agree with that form of protest but I can understand the frustration that drives some people on to the streets. There was such an occasion in Cork at the weekend. I considered the protest to be a peaceful one and I trust that the Chair will allow me quote a handout that was given to each of us by the people concerned. It is headed, "V.C.D. Protest Statement" and reads:
The main reason for a protest today is to make known publicly our total dissatisfaction and dismay with the Government's attitude and apparent lack of concern for the future of the State's only shipbuilding and shiprepair yard. In July 1980 the government announced a shipbuilding programme whereby four ships were to be built in V.C.D., namely, one bulkcarrier, two fishery protection vessels and one research vessel. To date only the bulkcarrier, which is being handed over in June, and one protection vessel, which is 50 per cent completed, have been ordered. The two remaining vessels still remain to be decided upon resulting in 350 to 400 people having to be made redundant. Since May 1982 representations have been made by Trade Unions and management to all local politicians, Ministers and party leaders of the need to honour their commitment to V.C.D. in relation to the two remaining vessels to be built. Unfortunately, all to no avail, as tomorrow Friday 27th May, 1983, 94 workers will join the already very long queue of unemployed plus another 175 people being given notice of termination of their employment.
The Trade Unions and workers agree with the rationalisation and inevitable loss of jobs which result, for the purpose of ensuring a viable future for V.C.D. and remaining workforce. However, we cannot accept the offer of redundancy payments being offered by the company which is approximately 10 per cent of local and national redundancy payments. We must emphasise that any amount of redundancy payment is in our view a poor substitute for jobs. On April 20th a delegation from Trade Union Group were informed by John Bruton, Minister for Industry and Energy that he hoped to have an announcement for the yard before May 6th. No announcement was made. On Monday May 23rd the Minister promised to have a cabinet discussion on Tuesday 24th May. No discussion took place. That meeting was representative of management and trade unions within the yard. These unfulfilled promises have resulted in V.C.D. personnel being totally frustrated and annoyed with the present Minister and Government and we now call on the Minister and Government to state publicly their plans for V.C.D. and let us know for definite if we are going to rise or fall as an industry.
The statement is signed on behalf of the work force in Verolme by Liam O'Leary. He will be known to many Members of the House. I need not say more than that.
We are talking about a mere fraction of the £120 million figure. In case anyone on the opposite benches or anyone commenting on the debate here should say that the Fianna Fáil speakers did not suggest where the money could be raised, I can tell the House where it can be raised. In this regard I suggest that the Minister approach his colleague, the Minister for Finance. We all know that independent commentators have said that the budget arithmetic is underestimated on the revenue side to the extent of a net £97 million, underestimated because of the extra revenue that will come as a result of certain impositions.
Last week Deputy O'Kennedy outlined clearly, in arguing for some amendments that he had tabled to the Finance Bill, how this situation will come about. No amendment of any consequence in terms of altering the situation was accepted. All that is required is a very small percentage of that £97 million to enable Verolme to remain in operation and to keep the workers in employment through this year. Of course the yard will seek out orders when world trade and shipping improve, but let us realise how much we can do here to facilitate and to help retain the skills that exist in this shipyard.
In 1975 we found it necessary to bring before the House a motion to deal with a situation in which an order for bulk carries for Irish Shipping had been placed outside the country. I understand the difficulties that the then Government could have encountered with Irish Shipping. We had to put the boot into Irish Shipping to ensure that an order for a bulk carrier was given to Verolme in, I think, 1980. That is the one that will be ready for delivery within a month or two. We have to surmount many problems and obstacles in that respect. As a result of decisions taken by the Government, Deputy Reynolds as Minister brought legislation before the House so that the necessary subsidy could be provided to enable the vessel to be built in the Cork shipyard. In addition, we have been endeavouring to have an order for a coal carrier for the ESB placed with Harland & Wolff in Belfast. Obviously, the facilities at Verolme were not sufficient for the building of that vessel. In the circumstances we considered that there was much economic and political sense in giving the order to a yard in this island, a yard that was depressed and under-utilised. There would have been a spin-off from that order for Verolme to the extent of £3 million or £4 million. The Taoiseach some months ago tried to throw the blame in connection with that order on to our side of the House. I admit that in our dying days in Government we did not make the decision to have the order placed with the Belfast yard. There were difficulties to be overcome and the decision, one way or the other, would have been difficult. However, had we remained in Government I am convinced that the decision we would have taken would have prevented the ESB from placing that order in Japanese yards.
The Government's decision was wrong. It did not make economic sense, especially when we realise what we are facing now. To have placed the order with Belfast would have been a wonderful contribution to the political development of the two parts of this island in that the Government of the Republic would have been seen to hand over a worthwhile order to the work force in Harland & Wolff, thereby helping to retain jobs there. At the same time, a figure of the order I have mentioned would have accrued by way of spin-off to the beleagured Cork shipyard.
B & I in the early months of this year saw fit to place a repair order across the water. The Minister can correct me if he wishes but I believe the figure there was £650,000. The Cork yard were asked to tender and were given a specified time when the contract should be completed. This is a good handy ploy often used to make sure that a particular company will not be able to complete a contract. I am not sure what the difference in price was but time was the great factor. The British yard said they could accept the time factor but that was only in theory. They did not deliver by the appropriate time. The Government should instruct companies like B & I not to repeat this. B & I treated Cork hard enough with their recent decision to stop sailing between Cork and Pembroke but to add insult to injury they gave the £650,000, if my figure is correct, to a British firm. Even if the figure was somewhat less than this it would have been very useful to Verolme if that order was given to them. It would have helped to retain the jobs there.
The main reason why we have put this motion before the House is to ask the Government, before it is too late, to stop this apparent attack on the south of Ireland, particularly the Cork region. I know my Cork colleagues on the other side of the House have as much concern for the future of that yard and those other industries as this side of the House have. I want them to express their views in the most powerful way possible by tonight saying to their Ministers by their vote in the lobbies that they are not prepared to go along with them, that they want this yard retained and they want the work force retained. The work force are prepared to accept that some streamlining is necessary but that must be done in a properly organised way. I have many friends, as I have no doubt all political parties have, in the work force of this shipyard. Some men who are in their late thirties were given the great opportunity when they left school of going to Holland, doing their training there and coming back to use that training and skill for the benefit of the Cork region. Many of those are now married with commitments and they are now being laid off. That is the trauma for all our supporters and this is not confined to any political party. The Minister has a heavy obligation. This is not the right time to see a large number of people being made jobless.
I would like to refer to the redundancy situation. Can we not understand the frustration of the young people I have mentioned? We have often heard opinions offered in the House about how difficult it is to employ the 50-year-old man or the man in his late forties but those are people in their late thirties. They maintain, because of their specialised skills, that it will be extremely difficult for them to get employment in the present economic climate. We have only got to look at certain decisions taken by the Government. Our leader was pilloried and many things were said about him. When we did a deal it was referred to as a dreadful thing but somehow the present Taoiseach seems to do very expensive deals. I am sure my colleague will have more information about the cost of the deals than I have. We heard a lot about the Talbot workers but when the present Government did a deal costing two times or three times more than the Talbot deal we heard very little about it from anybody. We read about it in one of the inside pages of our newspapers. I refer to the Avoca Mines in Wicklow. I remind the Cork Deputies that the Government did a very good deal with the workers there for obvious reasons.