Last night, when I had the opportunity of speaking here, I outlined many of the reasons I believed it was essential to the economic life of Cork that Irish Steel and the jobs therein should be maintained because we had already suffered too many body-blows in the employment scene recently. I said that we could not afford to lose another 650 jobs plus the spin-off estimated at 400 jobs — although the Minister alleged that that was an exaggeration — in other industries in the region. Cork cannot afford to lose these jobs. We must be very clear on the meaning of the motion and amendment before us. One of the factors taken into account in the amendment is the effectiveness of cost cutting measures recently announced by the company. By voting for that measure the Deputies opposite, especially the Labour Members, are voting to support the cost cutting measures announced by the chairman to the workers on 13 June. The statement from the chairman said:
At a special meeting of the Board last week, we came to inescapable conclusions. The first — and most important — is the company will face financial problems later this year.
If the outflow of cash is not staunched at once, the Board will be left with no alternative but to recommend to the Minister that the plant cease to trade and, in fact, close down.
The following decisions, therefore, have been taken by the Board:
1. There will be an instant pay freeze at all levels until the end of 1986.
2. The numbers employed by the company will be reduced by approximately 100 persons.
3. Redundancy payments will be restricted to statutory requirements plus one week's pay for every year of service.
4. The 1.7 per cent increase by way of analogue review for 1984 which was recommended by the Labour Court will be paid.
These decisions are the only way to resolve the crisis in our industry and to extend the life of the company. In consequence, they are not negotiable.
There is a Government policy both on analogue payments and the measure of redundancy payments in State Bodies. For this reason, I have to add that payment of the analogue of 1.7 per cent and an extra week over statutory redundancy payments will require Government approval.
I am not here to campaign for or to seek huge redundancy payments. I want the preservation of jobs. If a package of measures is being introduced and if reasonable, long and loyal service has been given by a group of people in the company, they are entitled to be considered if there is a commitment to the company continuing in existence with the remaining workforce.
The offer of redundancy is small by comparison with figures paid, even by State companies, in the Cork area. However, if it is dependent — and I hope it is not — on those 100 jobs being lost, then there must be reasonable and meaningful negotiations. If agreement cannot be reached, the workers should not be blamed for any tough measures which may have to be taken. It must be pointed out very clearly to the Members on the opposite side of the House that by voting for the amendment they are saying that the workers must accept the company's offer, that this is the end of the road and that we may hope for more later on. I say that very respectfully because I thought the Minister's speech last night was very reasonable, although I did not think it was as optimistic as my local newspaper seemed to think in its headline this morning. The Minister said that there may be some assistance forthcoming for unemployed or redundant steel workers from Europe, and I hope that there will be. However, it is all very vague and we need more information in that regard. Many questions remained to be answered after the Minister's speech last night and one of the most important was in regard to how soon we will know the amounts to which workers were entitled.
We want to preserve the jobs in Irish Steel and the economic climate which the continuance of Irish Steel means. Last night Deputy Lyons referred to the contribution of Irish Steel to the balance of payments and to exports. What happens if Irish Steel is not there? What about all the imports for our construction industry? I quoted from Business and Finance last night, and the person who wrote the article from which I quoted went on to say: “Thank God, nobody mentioned the strategic importance of Irish Steel”. That was a defeatist approach by the writer of that article because it is essential to produce as much of our own steel as possible. I should like us to be in a position where we could produce all our steel requirements, but obviously European and world trends dictate otherwise. Rationalisation programmes carried out over a number of years by successive Governments mean that only certain lines are now being produced here, but my recent visit to Irish Steel indicated that a lot of progress had been made, that modernisation and rationalisation had taken place and that a committed workforce were doing an excellent job.
Last night I pointed out that the major problems affecting them were outside factors beyond the control of Irish Steel management or workers. Labour costs were referred to as being high, but the responsibility of the workforce and the reasonable absentee rate is an indication of a commitment which is all too scarce in so many other Irish industries.
I should like to remind Deputies opposite that if they vote for the Government amendment they are finalising the nonnegotiable cost cutting measures announced by the chairman. They should look closely at the unconditional Fianna Fáil motion first. Our motion is the Government amendment without the dangerous conditions attached. Government Members should support it. There is a precedent for such action. When in Opposition Members opposite voted to nationalise the private enterprise Fieldcrest concern. They do not have to nationalise Irish Steel. It is a State company that we should preserve. We should protect the badly-needed jobs in the company for the Cork region.
