Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Feb 1993

Vol. 135 No. 3

Adjournment Matters. - Future of Irish Steel.

I am deeply concerned about the future of Irish Steel. I hope the Minister replying will be able to give a categorical assurance on the future of the plant and the position of the 560 workers employed there.

The new threat to Irish Steel arises from the over-capacity for steel on the European market and the desire of the EC to achieve rationalisation and a consequent reduction in production by the closure of a number of plants. However, it must be stressed that by European standards the production capacity of Irish Steel is very small and the Haulbowline plant is not the cause of the over-capacity on the European market. There is excess capacity of about 30 million tonnes, but the total annual production of Irish Steel is less than one-hundredth of that, at only about 250,000 tonnes.

Closing Irish Steel or running it down would not make much of a contribution to solving the problems of overcapacity of steel, but it would be a crushing blow to the east Cork area. There are now more than 30,000 people out of work in Cork city and county. The city has lost traditional major employers like Dunlops and Fords and the east of the county has not done much better.

One of the biggest employers in Cobh, the Verolme Cork dockyard, lies silent and empty, and there is a serious question mark over the position of jobs in Youghal Carpets following changes in the ownership structure of the company. Irish Steel is virtually the last major employer in the area and its workforce contributes £13 million in wages to the local economy. The loss of Irish Steel to east Cork would be just as severe as the Digital job losses will be to Galway.

In addition, there are strategic arguments that Ireland should retain its capacity to produce steel. Only Ireland and Denmark each has a single steel plant. All the other EC countries have several plants and would be able to close one or more while still retaining the capacity to produce on their own territory. On the other hand, if Haulbowline goes, our total capacity to produce steel will be gone.

The Irish Steel plant is relatively modern, having invested in a new mill in 1974. It has until recently been fairly profitable and its workers do not deserve to be sacrificed to meet the needs of the European steel giants.

Huge sums are being touted as being available from the EC to pay the cost of redundancy payments, but this would be a form of fools gold. The jobs lost in Haulbowline would be virtually impossible to replace. We cannot afford to lose any more jobs in Cobh or elsewhere. The loss of jobs has now reached such a level, that we would need to create a huge number of additional jobs simply to stand still. The EC must be told firmly that we do not want money for lay-offs: we want money for job creation.

Despite public denials from Government sources that they are interested in the offer from the EC, there is real fear and apprehension among the workers and the local population generally. I now look forward to a categorical assurance from the Minister that the plant will remain open and existing employment levels will be retained.

Thank you Senator Sherlock, a friend from another Chamber, for raising this matter. I can confirm the full and whole hearted commitment of the Government to the future of Irish Steel.

There is no pressure from the European Community to secure the closure of the plant at Haulbowline or of any particular steel plant in Europe as part of EC plans for the rationalisation of the European steel industries. Today at a meeting in Brussels, the EC Council of Ministers of Industry are considering a progress report from the EC Commission on their approach to secure the definition by the European steel industry before September 1993 of a precise programme for capacity reductions over the next two years.

The essential basis of this programme will be the voluntary closure of uneconomic plants by the industry. There is no compulsion and no intention that Irish Steel will participate in the closure programme. I am very pleased to say that categorically and to put it on the record of the House. The Minister of State, Deputy Brennan, is in Brussels today attending that meeting as this area forms part of his responsibilities. I understand from telephone contact with the Department that he is dealing with it in a forthright manner.

The widely publicised difficulties that have arisen in the European steel market in the past two years, a market with stagnant demand, have resulted in most steel companies being pushed into a loss making situation and Irish Steel has suffered losses since 1991. Irish Steel currently employs over 500 people. It is a substantial number and I share Senator Sherlock's, and all of the southern based Senators, concern about this matter.

The company makes steel for the construction industry and exports over 90 per cent of its output to virtually every country in western Europe. In the light of the worsening market situation it took a number of measures in 1992, funded from its own cash reserves, in order to improve its competitiveness. The continuing decline in European steel prices, which have dropped 30 per cent compared to 1989, has nullified efficiency gains and there has been the currency turbulence too.

After recording trading profits for the three years ended June 1991, Irish Steel had a trading loss of £1 million and is facing a substantial trading loss for the current year. The EC Commission which acts as the high authority to the ECSC has been slow to act in response to a serious deterioration in the European steel industry but following strong pressure it has recently initiated a programme to address the current problems of the industry. The basic problems are a substantial over-capacity, a growth in low priced imports from Eastern Europe and recent US restrictions on imports from the Community. The US is exhibiting strong streaks of protectionism under the new man in the White House; that is something that is going to affect us in all sorts of ways.

The main purpose of the Industry Council being held today in Brussels is to note the progress made to date. It seems likely the matter will be considered again in May. The EC Commission's initiative to address the serious difficulties of the European steel sector must be welcomed. They hope to have a plan in operation for next September.

Senator Sherlock has rightly said that with Denmark, Ireland is in a special position in being the only two countries in the Community which have no more than one steel mill. We cannot have any reduction of capacity without a total closure, and that is not envisaged. In other countries many companies have a number of mills, some more economic than others, and they stand to gain considerably from rationalisation measures within their group. This is not the case with Ireland. This is the point we have made forcibly; this is the point we will continue to make and on which we continue to build.

The Government is committed to safeguarding the future of Irish Steel but that does not mean that there is room for complacency. It means a close watch on operations, a need for efficiency, competitiveness and a range of other measures. In answer to Senator Sherlock, the Government is committed to fighting the just cause for Irish Steel, and it is justified.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 March 1993.

Top
Share