Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Jul 1923

Vol. 4 No. 18

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.

I move: "That a sum not exceeding £45,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in the course of payment for the year ending on the 31st March, 1924, for expenditure in connection with Haulbowline Dockyard." £40,000 had been voted on account.

I think it is due to one citizen of the Saorstát that tribute should be paid to him for the services that he rendered, and I take this opportunity of publicly expressing the Government's appreciation of the services of Mr. John O'Neill in the negotiations with the representatives of the British Government consequent on the transfer of the Yard. Mr. O'Neill was the Government's representative at the joint stocktaking with the British Admiralty, and when the time came for the handing over of the Yard he undertook the responsibility for all the details arising out of the transfer of property worth a very considerable sum. We owe it to his ability and tact that the whole of the arrangements were completed without the least friction or dispute. I am happy to be able to give this public acknowledgment of Mr. O'Neill's services, and of the indebtedness of the Government to him.

I want to raise a somewhat important question as to the future of Haulbowline, now that it has been transferred to the Free State. I do so on the basis of an advertisement which appeared in the London Times on Wednesday last, July 18th. The advertisement reads:—“The Government of the Irish Free State are prepared to consider offers for the lease of the above naval dockyard, situate at the entrance to Cork Harbour, and containing extensive wharf and warehouse accommodation, with large dry dock and slipways. The yard is provided with 60-ton shear legs,” etc. It goes on to give the specification, and says:—“Specification, drawings and particulars may be obtained”— and I direct particular attention to this in view of certain remarks I made here on the very date on which this advertisement appeared in London, although I did not know about it at the time —“From J.F. Crowley and Partners, Consulting Engineers, 16 Victoria St., Westminster. Offers, which should indicate the employment which would be afforded, should reach the above at Victoria St., Westminster, not later than August 25th. The Government do not bind themselves to accept the highest or any offer.”

There is a public question involved in this, and a public-private question as well. They are of different degrees and in different compartments of importance. I will deal with the lesser important first. Touching the matter that I raised last week, here is an advertisement put in by the persons who, we are told, are the Government Consulting Engineers. Their address is a London address, and they are a London house. I wanted to know last week, and I failed to elicit the information, as to what the terms or conditions of employment of these Consulting Engineers were, and exactly what their remuneration was. I had a clear suggestion in my mind which this abundantly confirms, because when I was shown this by an engineer in Dublin he said "That is the advertisement not of Consulting Engineers, but of Commission Agents." That was exactly what I had in my mind when I raised that question last week, and I touch upon it again just briefly, having this confirmation in my hand. It is a very remarkable thing that an advertisement should be put in by the Free State Consulting Engineers with a London address. Is there not Consulting Engineer here in Dublin with the necessary qualification who could undertake this work? Moreover, the advertisement appears in the London papers, and it does not appear in a single Irish paper.

Well, then, I am wrong. I have looked for it in the Irish papers and failed to find it. I am corrected by Deputy Johnson, and I withdraw my remark at once. It also raises a matter of public importance, for this reason. The Free State, acting through this firm, is desiring to dispose of Haulbowline. Tenders will be received, or may be received, and may be accepted. Any firm may put forward a tender and state a good price. It also states somewhere in this advertisement that it is necessary to state exactly what employment would be afforded. A suggestion may be made that adequate employment would be afforded, and the price may be good. This firm may get Haulbowline. Now, those who are familiar with the district know that Haulbowline is an island, and this firm, if they purchase it, may come and take possession of this island and use it as a dockyard. There will be no method of controlling what they are doing there. It may easily transpire that it is a foreign firm that has bought Haulbowline, and that it may really be acting on behalf of some foreign Power. It might be the case; it could be the case. The possibility is there. I think, for the best economic reasons, not for reasons merely of profit, Haulbowline should continue to remain in the possession of this State and should not get into other than Irish hands.

Apart from the economic reasons, for reasons of strategy, I can conceive it being very good business indeed, in view of the international complications that are only too evident and that are disturbing the minds of persons responsible in many capitals to-day, to retain this dockyard. I can see that there are several nations that might desire, through private sources, to purchase a dockyard like this, in view of possible eventualities in the future. Here is an advertisement permitting this, and even inviting it. It would be a grave matter of policy if we were to lay down as a principle that an important dockyard like Haulbowline should pass into the hands of foreigners. I would go so far as to say that it should not be continued by a private firm, that a position dealing with the strategic defences of this country should not be permitted to pass out of the possession of this State. Even though the maintenance of it is not going to be so profitable, I believe that eventually a greater profit will accrue by retaining it, inasmuch as we will have more adequately safeguarded the national protection. It is a matter of common knowledge that Haulbowline was always considered a very important station, from the point of view of naval strategy, and now that it has passed to the Government of the Irish Free State, for that reason, if for no other it should be retained by them. In view of the possibility of international complications, which are not a myth, and which no care can guard against, I think Haulbowline should not pass out of the control of the Government of the Irish Free State.

I wish to say a few words on this subject of the Haulbowline Dockyard. I shall deal first with it from the point of view of the bill presented by the British Government to our Government recently. It is for a very huge amount, and I notice in the Estimate that £60,000 has been paid. I hope it is not a fact that £60,000 has been paid before this Dáil had an opportunity of going into the details of that account as presented. It is only fair to the Dáil, many members of which do not know this place, that I should state what occurred. On the 1st April, 1922, the British Government had decided to close down the place, in order to effect economies after the war. That would have been very serious for the locality and serious for the large number of men and their families dependent on the place, and who are still depending on it for their livelihood. The late General Collins, who was then Minister for Finance, visited the place and saw the importance of keeping the place open, at all events for a period. He entered into some agreement with the British Admiralty that his Government would be responsible for the wages if the yard was kept open and the men continued in employment. About the same time, it is necessary to point out, that unfortunately for this country a vessel left Haulbowline under the noses of the officers of that Island, and we may, perhaps, assume with the connivance of some of them. She left the place in broad daylight and passed into the hands of men who were arrayed against the Provisional Government, and who used those guns afterwards in hacking up the State and in attempting to destroy the power of the Provisional Government. I mention this because it all occurred after General Collins had entered into this agreement, and consequently it was not possible for the Members of the Provisional Government to give the attention which they would give, of course, in normal circumstances to the expenditure of the money guaranteed by General Collins. A huge bill was sent in by the British Government afterwards, and it has been commented upon by the President and by many others. We are not told what value this Government is going to get for the moneys expended. I saw it stated in the Press that we were to get no value at all, that the money was actually dished out and that the men gave nothing in return. I have been in touch with some people who work there, and who are in a position to speak, and they have given me some figures. I am not an authority on those matters, of course, and I am not an assessor, but I think it would be necessary for this Government to get an assessor to go through some of these figures. There were 13 British Destroyers during that period repaired there. Surely we must know what the value of the work to those destroyers amounted to. Some people say it surely reached a figure of £5,000 per Destroyer, and there were various other craft repaired there during the same period. I have another item forwarded to me——

Do you say that there were various other destroyers repaired there?

Various other craft — ferry boats, and some work for outside firms. We have an item, "Unnecessary ferries," which runs from £5,000 to £10,000. Every officer of the Yard or member of his family who wanted to get to the other side took out a boat and ran it across. "Wages charged to unnecessary services," another £5,000. We do not know what those details are. It might mean repairs to some of the officers' boats or some of their hockey sticks, or something of that sort. Surely it was not intended, when a member of the Provisional Government entered into agreement with the Government on the other side, that this extravagance would take place and should be continued at a time when this Government was engaged in protecting the State and the lives and property of the people. Then they present this huge Bill and say: "This is the net amount; we are giving you credit for all the work." We must see that credit. I think it is necessary that this Dáil should see every detail in connection with this account and be satisfied that we are getting credit. I believe that if we investigate the account, the position in regard to this claim will be reversed.

Passing from that point to the taking over of the Yard by our Government, I wish to join with the President in paying my small tribute to Mr. O'Neill and his colleagues in the work they did during that period of transference. The work they did in connection with stock-taking and other matters was very heavy indeed. They did it very successfully, but I think they made one mistake, which is not working out very well for the management of the Yard up to the present. Of course they went to that place not knowing who was who in the Yard. They did not know any of the people in the locality, and they entered into some sort of agreement I understand with the officers of the dockyard — those very people, you must remember, who were there at the time the guns left the yard to destroy the country, or help towards its destruction, and who were responsible for a good deal of the extravagance. I do not think that these were the class of people any of our representatives should have got into touch with for advice. I think they should have got into touch with people who were sympathetic with this Government and willing and anxious to help this Government on. So far as I can learn they did not get into touch with any such people. I have the honour to represent a portion of the constituency, and I was never consulted. As a matter of fact, I knew very little about those agreements until quite recently.

I was quite prepared, and so were a good many others, to risk everything in order to assist this Government in the administration of affairs in Haulbowline. Still I was not consulted, but I am not complaining about that. What I am complaining about is the fact that they entered into an agreement with the particular class of people I have made reference to. I got a copy of a Minute which reads:—"Free State representatives were not in a position to deal with the question of the personnel, and the yard officers agreed to furnish the Free State representatives, who will be in charge of the yard after the 1st April, with lists of suitable men.” It does not state what particular qualifications those men have. Are they men of long training or experience in this particular work? We do not know. Those men were taken on, at all events, when our representatives went there permanently. The place was handed over to the Board of Works, and they are the representatives mentioned in this particular paper. Haulbowline, as Deputy Figgis has stressed, is an important dockyard, and has always been so looked upon. It is one of the most important, at all events, in these waters.

I think a serious mistake is made by the Government in handing the management of such an important dockyard, where the livelihood of so many families is at stake, over to the Board of Works. What experience has the Board of Works or anybody there in the handling of dockyards? They may be able to handle the reconstruction of a police or military barracks, but of the handling of machinery and men in a big institution of this kind they know absolutely nothing. It was fatal to hand it over to them. I am saying this deliberately, because I believe our President and the Government, when they get reports in the near future about the management of that place since the Board of Works took it over, will be surprised.

When the President was in Cork recently he received a deputation from there which gave him some very useful points to go on. There is not a day on which I do not receive complaints from this place. I am fully aware that the President and the Government were from the very start extremely anxious to give Haulbowline an opportunity of proving its worth. Last April the President said to a deputation: "If we can work Haulbowline on economic lines, by all means we shall do so." That is the very thing we want. We want Haulbowline to be retained, if possible, by the present Government, and to be worked on economic lines. That is why I complain of the place being handed over to people who could not possibly work on economic lines. As far as I can learn, they are not in sympathy with the development of that institution, or perhaps many other institutions in the State. We want that place handed over to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, people whom we know are in sympathy with the development of our industries and our institutions, and people who will be able to give practical experience in such development. The sooner this place is taken away from the present management the better for all concerned, the better for the State and the people whose livelihood depends on it. At a recent meeting the President was heckled by some quasi-Irregular: "What did you do about Haulbowline?" The person who asked that had no sympathy with Haulbowline, but spoke for the mere sake of interruption. The President stated to myself and others that he is quite prepared to give Haulbowline a fair chance.

at this stage resumed the Chair.

As proof of that he ordered that twelve trawlers be repaired at Haulbowline. That is sufficient proof of the President's sympathy and the sympathy of his Government. But what do we find? Since last April there are three boats on the stocks undergoing repair. Four months ago the repair work started, and will any man tell me seriously, when the accounts for repairing those boats will be furnished in the near future, that the President can stand up here and defend Haulbowline as a paying proposition in face of the fact that three small boats are being re-conditioned there for the last four months? He cannot do so, because the management and supervision there is all wrong. That is the reason why the "Helga" went to Belfast, and perhaps other boats will go to Belfast.

I mention those few points in order to draw the attention of the President and the Dáil to the seriousness of the situation, and I ask the President to have an inquiry instituted into the whole working of the system of management and supervision at Haulbowline. The sooner such inquiry is held the sooner shall we have boats repaired there, and we shall have no further "Helgas" going to Belfast or to other dockyards outside the Saorstát.

I suggested to the President some time ago that many of the lorries and motor cars commandeered by our military authorities many months ago which were broken up or damaged might be sent for repair to Haulbowline. Possibly the machinery there could be adapted to repairing them. It is excellent machinery, and the repaired cars could be turned out in a very short time and returned to their owners. That would save the State considerable expense. The local authority succeeded some years ago in raising a loan to give a supply of water to Haulbowline. That loan has not yet been liquidated. They are still in debt to the extent of about £50,000, and I would like to know from the Minister if any assistance could be given by the present Government in connection with paying off that.

I want to support the views of Deputy Hennessy in respect to Haulbowline. I think that he is on good ground when he says that the defect there is inefficient management, or at any rate inadaptability to new circumstances. I think that it would be a blunder to dispose of this establishment. I think it ought to be retained as a State institution. Deputy Figgis has pointed out some of the reasons why it should be so retained. But I think that the Minister ought to bear in mind that this dockyard was adapted for certain work for the British Admiralty, and they retained a staff and an organisation there, uneconomic, always uneconomic, but ready for emergencies, such emergencies as were much more likely to occur under the British Admiralty even than under any Irish Government conditions. The overhead charges and general method of organisation of the dockyard are probably the real reason why the dockyard seems to be an uneconomic proposition, and why it is unfitted under its present management to compete for ordinary commercial work. Deputy Hennessy has spoken of the failure to quote, or to estimate successfully, against Belfast for the repairs to the "Helga." There have been other attempts, I understand, to make estimates for work to be done, and the estimates have been too high.

Consequently the work has gone elsewhere. It is fashionable to blame high wages for inability to compete successfully, certainly in respect to other dockyards, but here you have a dockyard which has been working and has worked up to now on the British scale of wages. It is not the competition of lower wages that has made it impossible for Haulbowline Dockyard to do work in fair competition with rival firms. It is something else. It is not lack of machinery or lack of appliances. They are as good there as anywhere. It is bad organisation, organisation unfitted for that particular class of work, and management that has not been directed to getting the best out of the dockyard itself. We all know what happened in the shipyards during the War, when firms found it profitable to retain men months and months sometimes doing little, sometimes doing nothing, because it was necessary to have them. And the cost was put on to the job. It may have been good policy. It was good policy to retain the men. It is not a fair method of computation of the cost of the job to say that the men whom we retain waiting for a job shall be charged against that new job. What has happened in the past in Haulbowline has been, necessarily so, that they would have men available for emergencies; they kept large numbers of men doing work that was not valuable, but was charged against the establishment. I think that that, along with the excessive overhead charges that were charged against jobs, is probably responsible for the inability of that concern to estimate fairly for work done for the State. I believe that the establishment can be run successfully, and ought to be run for the purpose of doing public work, private work if necessary, but as a public dockyard and a public engineering establishment, and I suggest that, with Deputy Hennessy, it might well be considered how far other work, not of a ship-repairing nature, could be done in that same establishment. My chief reason in rising was to support the views first of Deputy Figgis that this dockyard ought to be retained as a national concern, and that it ought to be retained and managed efficiently by men who intend to get the most out of it. I also wanted to point out that, whatever defects there may be, whatever failure there has been in connection with the dockyard's inability to compete successfully, it has not been on account of the high rate of wages, and I ask Deputies to note that fact, that contracts are lost, business passes by, from other reasons than inability to get wages reduced.

I would like to support Deputy Johnson and Deputy Hennessy in their demand for an inquiry as to how this amount of £85,000 was piled up at Haulbowline. It is not as if one goes in for repairing destroyers that Deputy Hennessy mentions, and work done for outside firms, but if the returns were here of the amount of furniture that was made for officials that were employed at Haulbowline and the number of pleasure boats and motor boats made, it would throw some light on it. Any amount of stuff went to the making of this furniture and repairing boats, and an amount of stuff was looted. If all these stories we hear are to be believed — and I am sure there is a great deal of truth in them, if they are not all true — I think we will find that this amount of £85,000 could be whittled down considerably, and that you might have it down to half of that, or less, and find that Haulbowline was not such an uneconomic proposition as it appears on the surface. I would like to support Deputy Hennessy, too, in the remarks that he has made about woeful mismanagement at Haulbowline at present. That has been shown in the estimates for the "Helga" and in the way in which the work on the trawlers has been delayed since last May. All these things are piling one on top of the other, and they are all proof of the woeful inefficiency which is manifest in the management of that dockyard. I am sure if the inquiry, asked for is granted you will find that the tale we have been hearing for the last twelve months about Haulbowline is not so bad as it appears on the surface, and if a good many of these abuses could be rectified the working of Haulbowline will be quite an economic proposition for the Government.

With regard to the advertisement that has been objected to by Deputy Figgis, it was after long and careful consideration and many conferences that I agreed personally to the issue of that advertisement. The Consulting Engineers have offices in Dublin, but I take it that it was assumed that not many Irish firms would enter into competition for this yard, and that it would much more likely to attract British or Continental firms, and for that purpose, the office being in London, it might help in some way in getting in touch with a firm that could be met and to whom the advantages of the yard might be explained, and in that way, possibly, we might get a better leaseholder. With regard to what has been said by Deputy Hennessy, Deputy Johnson and Deputy Day, I do not subscribe to the idea that because an institution of this sort was administered to suit the needs of the British Government, we should, in consequence, keep it on. The British Government had need of an Institution like this. It served their purpose. We have not a navy, and if we had a navy I expect that, for some years at any rate, we would keep a place like this busy, because navies, like other things, are rather expensive if you have not some experience of them. If that would be a justification for keeping it on, you would probably have the taxpayers of the country objecting to it. Governments and corporations, and other bodies, do not run institutions like this as well as private firms. I do not think any Deputy has had more experience than I have had of corporations running works with success. They have not been a success, except in places where they have gradually grown, and where great care and great business management had attended their birth and development, and that it was a pride to the nation or the corporation to see them grow in that fashion. This is an institution which, we are told, had expensive officers, and it was associated with a great, rich nation capable of keeping these officers in, I suppose, positions of comfort and of ease, and not in very hard work. We are asked to take over this and all the stocks and all its costs. The Board of Works is the institution that we have for undertaking works and repairs. We handed over this place to the Board of Works. We would not hand it over to, let me say, Local Government, which has a staff of doctors and administrators; we would not hand it over to the Fisheries, and we would not hand it over to the Minister for Education, although I believe if we handed it over to him and he put his educational experts on it they would have plenty of work to do. The Ministry of Industry and Commerce have not got any organisation for it, that I know of. The Board of Works looked around for a manager, and they got what appeared to them and to me to be the best person in Dublin for the work, the manager of the Dublin Dockyard Company. He went down there, and we know what has happened since. He went there, I think in April. We know we have got a bill for £85,000, and we have paid £60,000 on account. If we did not pay it the British Government would be entitled to keep on the yard, so I am not at all satisfied that it is such a position or such a place of strategic naval importance as Deputy Figgis thinks. I think the British Navy has got a very capable officer at its head in Admiral Beatty, and I think it is most unlikely that he would allow at any distance from him an important strategic position like that — but, of course, the Deputy may have greater naval experience than the Admiral.

It is a very lamentable admission that Admiral Beatty would disallow that if he wished to sell it.

All these matters were discussed during the Treaty Conference. I saw the whole of the discussions, and the Admiral said what he wanted; other people pointed out that there was no necessity for taking that position and this position, and so on. I believe, at that time, if he were able to state a case for the strategic importance of this particular outpost, that he would have maintained his case for it, but he did not. The Deputy disagrees with him. I am sure that the Admiral would pay more attention to his naval duties after he found he had made a mistake like that. There is bad organisation. That is one of the statements made, and I suppose the inference to be drawn is that we have to mend this bad organisation and to cure these infirmities. I say we cannot afford it. The cost is beyond the resources of this State. We cannot support that concern down there, run at a loss for a number of years, and run the risk, perhaps of making a successful venture after a great many years. We cannot do it, and we cannot afford it. We are told now about all the mistakes, the expenses, the excess of officers, and so on. The Deputies knew a while ago there was a considerable bill coming into us, but we heard nothing about these complaints and these extravagances. It is said also, I heard it when I went to Cork, that there was a good deal of looting out of the yard. It is a strange thing that we never heard anything about the looting until that tender from Haulbowline was beaten by a tender from Belfast by more than 50 per cent. The case put up to me there was: "If you do not keep on the yard you will have to pay unemployment benefit, and that would be no gain to you." I said, "I can afford to pay in unemployment benefit the whole of the wages the men would earn in this work and have £100 over afterwards." That is really the case. As regards the trawlers, it was my instruction at first that the trawlers should go there, but when I find out what the cost of repairing them there would amount to, I stopped it at once. The State cannot afford luxuries like this if they are expensive luxuries. The State cannot afford to maintain strategical outposts of that sort. I would rather run the risk of invasion, and advise the Nation to run the risk of invasion, than to keep on this place incurring a loss of £85,000 a year. I think it will be 20 years before we are invaded, and at the end of that time we will probably be able to buy a couple of guns out of the money we have saved, and plant them in such position that it will be unsafe for any foreigner to come along to tamper with our Constitution or the freedom we enjoy.

The President has not convinced me with his arguments in favour of not utilising Haulbowline. He talks of a future annual loss of £85,000. Nobody wants that. We say there is no need for a future loss of £85,000 on Haulbowline if it is properly managed and properly organised. It is because these things are standing in the way that we ask an inquiry should be held into the whole organisation, direction and management of the place, and if there is such an inquiry I assure the President he will come back after the investigation and agree with me and the other Deputies who have spoken. Deputy Johnson stresses wages. I say the mechanics there are working at £2 16s. a week. Similar mechanics working outside, at Furness and Whitby, for instance, earn up to £9 a week on the same work. What is known as the "line of demarcation" is not observed at Haulbowline. The shipwright coming as a shipwright to Haulbowline will work at six or seven other branches as well for £2 16s. a week. That was the system under the British regime, and the workers came together and said if the Free State Government took over the place they would carry on as under the British regime in order to save the place for the Free State. Where, then, I ask, are we to look for the cause of all this extravagant expenditure of £85,000 to the nation. I understand that docking in Belfast costs a huge sum. There is no expense for docking in Haulbowline; any vessel can come into the Government yard and there is no expense. There are various other expenses attached to vessels coming into Belfast, and other outside yards which do not exist at Haulbowline. I urge the President to grant this inquiry.

The President is quite a specialist in flippancy when any matter is mentioned that he desires to have dismissed in that airy fashion. It is very easy to do that. Nevertheless, I say that to advertise so important a strategic point, which may be occupied to our disadvantage in the future, is bad, and I simply leave it at that. The next point is with regard to this advertisement. I do say, and any business house in this country or any other country will confirm me in saying, that when tenders are asked for these tenders should be sent to the people whose property is being offered in that way, and should not be sent to those who are acting upon their behalf. The proper place these tenders should go is to the Ministry of the Irish Free State.

I am rather surprised at a case put forward by Deputy Hennessy, that Furness and Whitby have men engaged earning £8 or £9 a week, and mechanics in Haulbowline only earning £2 16s. If Messrs. Furness, Whitby or other firms of that kind were to take up this yard, would there not be greater opportunities of the men earning more wages? They are restricted there now, the Deputy says, to £2 16s. If they have opportunities of earning further amounts in the same area I should think they would be glad of such opportunities.

As a matter of fact, we would not object to leasing the place to Furness and Whitby if the State cannot undertake to keep the place open.

The State, after all, in the last analysis, comes down to this, that there are seven or eight or ten men in the State running the State. I presume in the same way you could make the case that the Board of Works knew nothing about this. You might also say that the Minister for Finance had no experience of finance when I took up the office last July twelvemonth, and that the Ceann Comhairle had no experience of chairmanships before as he had never been in a Parliament before. It might also be said that the Minister for Local Government had no experience of Local Government work, never having been a Minister for Local Government before, or that Deputy Fitzgerald, never having had association with other countries, knew nothing about Foreign Affairs. That is the position with regard to the Board of Works, and having that in mind it is still put to me that we should take on this, we who know nothing about it, and hand it over from one Ministry to another. There is an American term, I think, of "passing the pup," but I am afraid that will not improve matters. We intended to see if it were possible to get some firm to run this place, so that the men engaged there would not lose their employment. That was the main case put up to us, the danger that we were threatened with in April, 1922.

It was to avert that danger that we took over the yard. When we find the cost of it to be excessive, and that we cannot afford that service, we are now endeavouring to find some firm that will take it over as a business proposition. Deputy Figgis holds that we have done wrong about the advertisements. I do not know that we have, but I will look into that point. It certainly struck me that it would be much more likely that firms which might consider it advisable to take this place would be convenienced by the fact that the Consulting Engineer would be in a place which is perhaps much more noted for its business activities and the extension of business activities than the City of Dublin. To that extent, and that extent only, was the advertisement put in for that place. But I will look into that point and see if there is anything wrong in it from the point of view of the status or the business of the State, and will also see that it does not occur again.

The Minister did not say if he would grant the holding of the inquiry.

I do not see what useful purpose an inquiry would bring about. First of all, as I said before, we are not experienced in running dockyards, and to have an inquiry there should be at least some experience with regard to the running of them. Objection has been made to the Board of Works, and it has been suggested that the Ministry of Industry and Commerce should take over the yard. I have no hesitation in saying that the Ministry of Industry and Commerce is perfectly satisfied with the proposal that we put forward. As regards the inquiry, if the inquiry has reference to this particular sum I say we will investigate that, but as regards an inquiry into the yard, and as to the disposal of the vessel full of arms and ammunition that went out of the yard, and into all the pieces of timber and machinery taken out, to that I say no. I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry.

Question put and agreed to.

That now concludes the consideration of all the Estimates. The resolutions passed on the Votes will be reported to-morrow.

Barr
Roinn