I listened with interest to Deputy Michael Ahern's contribution, despite the fact that there has been almost a two week gap in the debate. Having lived through the uncertainty of Irish Steel — before I was elected to this House — and the successful conclusion of the deal — after being elected — it is incredible that during his contribution he found it impossible to say a good deal was done. To hear somebody cast further doubts on a good deal which is now almost 12 months old will cause further worry and fears for the people in Cobh and Irish Steel. They should not have to endure those unnecessary fears because they had an incredibly bad time while arriving at the solution. I assure them as I am sure Deputies from Cork city and county wish to assure them, that all the negotiations and co-operation were not in vain. We are now merely discussing the finality of putting in place the deal which was arrived at in relation to ISPAT. When people speak in the House they forget that those directly concerned are listening and will worry if they hear any note of caution.
It was a good deal and was arrived at with the co-operation of the workforce. The management package was the result of enormous effort by Government Departments, Pat Dineen and the unions involved. At the end of the day they came to an agreement which was turned down by the UK Government and had again to be fought for. The announcement last year and the deal concluded with ISPAT marked the beginning of a new era for Irish Steel and the region. Deputies from Cork city will rightly say that many people will benefit apart from those working in Irish Steel and in the Cobh area. Representations came from all areas and the unions were extremely concerned. This was the first sign of modern thinking I had witnessed in relation to co-operation in how to solve an industrial problem which was outside our control. It was done very efficiently.
The uncertainty which has hung over the future of Irish Steel since the early 1980s has had an adverse effect on the economic confidence and activity not only in Cobh but in the region. From time to time the anxiety lessened and Cobh came on in leaps and bounds. It had its heritage centre and environmental schemes. Everyone admits Cobh is a beautiful, thriving town. The Cork area has had to contend with multiple job losses in the past decade. However, with the welcome development of 200 dockside jobs, this Government is having some success in reversing the trend. Cobh has always had a thriving harbour industry as well as Irish Steel, the loss of which would have been the final straw for the area.
ISPAT, with a reputation that is second to none, will be able to make Irish Steel a viable industry. It will harness the commitment of the workers which is no longer in doubt and find a niche market for its products. There are already indications that the company is heading into a new era. Great credit is due to this Government, in particular to the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, who with their officials worked tirelessly not only to secure the ISPAT deal but also to secure UK agreement for the aid package.
The decline in employment in Irish Steel from 1,000 two decades ago mirrors a similar decline in other European plants. It was obvious for some time that cost reductions and restructuring measures would have to be implemented if the company's long-term future were to be guaranteed. It was also obvious to Democratic Left that the price for this would have to be a guarantee for the future of the workforce who bent over backwards to put together this deal. This was the first time I witnessed successful modern union/management co-operation. Other industries should learn from this.
Democratic Left is not prepared to accept a US style down-sizing ethos which views workers as expendable and merely incidental to the business of making money. The Government has overseen the transfer to Irish Steel from State to private ownership in a manner that will ensure the protection of the workforce. The ISPAT deal heralds a new era of constructive partnership between the semi-State sector and overseas companies which have the ethos and track record to make a significant contribution to Irish industrial development. We should not be fearful of this. We did not know a great deal about ISPAT before it became involved in the Irish steel industry but we now know that companies with good international records are prepared to work as efficiently here as in their own countries.
In seeking to secure agreement for the aid package that would guarantee the future of Irish Steel, the Government had to overcome persistent objections from the UK, which put forward the strongest, most persistent and arrogant objection I have ever witnessed from one EU country opposing a package in another. The restrictions on production and export imposed by the EU are due mainly to UK fears that a rejuvenated Irish Steel might pose a threat to British Steel. That marks the respect with which ISPAT is held in the steel industry. British Steel and the UK Government are well aware of ISPAT's reputation and know it can and will make Irish Steel a viable industry. This was a peculiar decision of the Tories who continually promote free competition, deregulation and non-interference in the market. They sought to impose conditions designed to render Irish Steel uncompetitive, but I have no doubt the company will overcome those restrictions and carve out a distinctive and profitable niche for itself in European and world markets, where ISPAT has a good track record and the right connections.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the problems encountered by Irish Steel in recent years are part of a wider difficulty confronting the European steel industry in general. Democratic Left has long argued for the formulation of a common European industrial policy which would control State aids to the richer central regions of the European Union. This has been the case for the agriculture industry since the end of the Second World War and, despite what we would like to believe, agriculture is a minority industry. Many jobs are under threat because of the current difficulties in the agricultural industry and the entire EU thinking process is concentrated on solving those problems and bailing farmers out of their present difficulties. Solutions will be found. However, there is not a similar level of concentration in the EU on creating, supporting and protecting jobs in the industrial sector. We should readjust our thinking and concentrate on areas in which jobs can be created. We should adopt policies that provide equal protection, support and resources for the agricultural and industrial sectors. This is a rational and logical argument, not an urban versus rural one.
How do we propose to solve the major unemployment problem of, for example, Cork North-Central? There is an 80 per cent unemployment rate in six areas in the country and, apart from some Government measures, the EU does not have a centralised plan to deal with such problems. However, it can plough vast amounts of money into other areas. How can I explain to the unemployed, low waged or those earning a reasonably good wage in Cork North-Central that on average they pay £20 per week to support farmers? Agriculture is a minority industry, and argument regularly made by the IFA who continually inform us about the number of people leaving the land. Why have we not listened? Why is the agricultural sector still getting more attention and funding than other sectors?
Despite the fact that it no longer employs 1,000 people, Irish Steel is vital to the Cork region and the deal that has been secured will guarantee jobs for the workers. The collapse of Irish Steel would have wreaked havoc on the lives of many families. Now that we have a problem in the beef industry, which is not of the PAYE workers' making but which they need to be concerned about because it involves a consumer product, there is total co-operation within the EU. In regard to Irish Steel, further barriers were put up. Why is there never such co-operation when it comes to industrial policy and the industrial sector? Why do politicians not realise that the major sector in this country is the sector seeking to provide employment in industry? When are we going to put the type of thinking, resources and concentrated effort into the industrial sector that is now being put into agriculture? We will have it when the industrial sector gets its act together and starts employing people to make its arguments in the same way as farmers do.
The development of a common industrial policy is vital to regional development and to ensuring that jobs are created and maintained on the periphery rather than concentrated in the centre. We should not lose sight of the fact that the European Union has its origins in the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community after World War II. Nearly half a century ago the founding fathers of modern Europe recognised the centrality of coal and steel in securing the Continent's economic development. That has not greatly changed. Our problem is that we are on the periphery and it is necessary to discriminate in favour of peripheral countries like Ireland who need extra help and who are at present being represented by groups in Europe who keep telling the commissioners and the parliament that our major industry is agriculture. It is not. Urban unemployment is the problem. It is a problem of neglect, of deliberate inaction, and we need to start talking about that.
Competition and intervention are not mutually exclusive. The challenge facing us is to develop a common policy which will ensure that location is not a bar to competition and which enables all industries to compete on a level playing pitch. That is not what happened regarding Irish Steel. Irish Steel, from now on, will not be playing on a level pitch. It will be playing with a handicap imposed by the EU at the behest of Britain. We only just got that deal through. Were it not for two of the more capable Ministers in this House we probably would not have done so. It appeared, from time to time, that there were people who, because they were on the Opposition Benches, would have preferred Irish Steel to close rather than save jobs.
