Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 May 1931

Vol. 38 No. 11

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 27—Haulbowline Dockyard.

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £3,900 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Costaisí i dtaobh Longlainne Inis Sionnach.

That a sum not exceeding £3,900 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for expenses in connection with Haulbowline Dockyard.

I think it may be as well for me to give the Dáil some account of the present position at Haulbowline. On the 26th June, 1929, I gave a general statement of events since the Saorstát Government took over the island in 1923, and explained that we proposed to let the dockyard if possible, but that whether we could let it or not we had decided to close it down and reduce our staff to a small maintenance party. On the 8th May, 1930, I stated to the Committee that we had made a temporary letting of the dockyard to the contractors for the breaking up of the "Celtic," which went aground in Cork Harbour in 1929. Although the letting was for this special purpose, the firm (Messrs. Peterson and Albeck) hope to be able to extend their operations and set up a permanent business of ship-breaking in Cork Harbour, and to do some ship-repairing also if that proves practicable; and we are very willing to facilitate them by giving them a long lease of the dockyard if we could agree on suitable terms, and if no better use for it turned up in the meantime. No better use has turned up; the prospects of shipbuilding and ship-repairing firms are rather worse now than were in 1929. We have had no offer for the dockyard, though we had inquiries which came to-nothing.

Rushbrooke and Passage dockyards are now definitely closed down and are selling off their plant. The Queenstown Dry Dock Company have gone into liquidation. We have succeeded in making a fair agreement with Messrs. Peterson and Albeck, who have formed a company in the Saorstát (Haulbowline Industries, Ltd.) to work the place. The agreement has been embodied in a draft lease, which will be discussed with the lessees and completed when the Oireáchtas has given its general approval to the transaction in accordance with the terms of the State Lands Act, 1924. One consequence of the agreement is that a great part of the plant and buildings in the dockyard will have to be scrapped. This is necessary because they are not required for the business of ship-breaking; but it is also necessary because much of the plant is obsolete or redundant even for the purpose of ship repairing.

The dockyard was designed for the purpose of repairing ironclads and other large war vessels, and even for that purpose it was not well designed, because it was made up of many additions. It was still less well designed for the purpose of repairing ordinary merchant vessels, and a large part of the plant was either obsolete in design or nearly worn out. During the last few years we have sold a good deal of scrap from the island. We were fortunate enough to sell some copper during the boom of that metal, but the present is a bad time to sell scrap or anything else, and we may very probably keep what is left for better times. We shall act as seems best at the moment. That part of the plant which is essential for the ship-breaking business is included in the lease to our tenants, and they will be bound to maintain it. Another part which is useful, but not in good enough condition for leasing, is being sold to them at an agreed price. The remainder will be disposed of in the open market when the market is more favourable. It is not of great value, and the buildings which have been abandoned have, roughly speaking, no value at all. The materials are not worth the cost of demolition.

All that I have been saying refers to the dockyard only; that is, the eastern part of the island. The western part contains stone store-houses, a hospital, some 60 houses, some barrack buildings and five oil tanks, three of them large and two small, with a total capacity of 17,000 tons of heavy oil or 14,000 tons of petrol. We have always hoped to be able to let these oil tanks which are clearly a valuable property if they can be used, but their capacity far exceeds what is needed for the supply of Cork and the neighbourhood. The principal ports for the import and distribution of oil and petrol in Ireland are Belfast, Dublin, and Foynes on the Shannon, and there is no reason to expect that this state of things will change. We have now negotiated an agreement with a newly-formed firm, the Cork Harbour Oil Wharves, Ltd., which proposes to import oil and petrol in bulk to Haulbowline and deliver it from there in smaller ships to ports in Ireland and Great Britain. This being an entrepot or transit trade depends upon a large turnover and cannot bear heavy charges and at our suggestion the Cork Harbour Board has agreed to a specially low scale of harbour dues on oil and petrol thus tran-shipped. We have every hope that this venture will succeed and will be profitable to the new firm, to the Harbour Board, and to the Government.

When both these new firms are established and in working order we shall have to take up the consideration of the question what is to be done with the rest of the island, and especially with the houses and their inhabitants. I do not know what the best course will prove to be, but I anticipate that the Government will not continue much longer to manage all this rather troublesome house property on the present philanthropic lines.

When these leases are made the Government will be relieved of the maintenance of the greater part of the buildings on the island but will have to carry out certain works of restoration which will be properly chargeable to the maintenance sub-head A. The total vote is £5,800 as against £4,150 in 1930-31. In sub-head A, dockyard maintenance, the amount is £4,000, showing an increase of £900, due to the necessity for heavy repairs on the coaling jetty to be included in the lease of the oil tank installation. Sub-head B, fuel, light and water, amounts to £400. There is a reduction of £250 due to the leasing of the greater part of the island. Sub-head C deals with alterations to plant and buildings. The increase of £1,000 is due to the necessity for providing for expenditure that may arise in connection with the disposal of certain surplus buildings and plant in view of the revised arrangements for the leasing of the eastern part of the island.

I would like if the Parliamentary Secretary would inform the House if portion of the dockyard has been let. It is difficult to understand if an income is received by reason of the letting, why there should be an increase in the amount of the Estimate. Possibly he can give some information as to the letting and how it was arrived at. I think some further information is desirable in connection with this Vote.

I have heard strange complaints about Haulbowline during the last twelve months, particularly in regard to the machinery which we were told at one period was very valuable. I understand that a large portion of the machinery has been handed over as scrap to people who took the dockyard, and that it has been taken away. I would like to hear what price was paid for machinery that was supposed to be scrapped. There is also a reduction in the Estimate for fuel, light and water. How many people are living on the island to whom we are supplying fuel, light and water? Who are these people? Are they employed in Haulbowline or are they people who are residing there without paying rates and taxes? I would like to know how the maintenance of the dockyard has increased from £3,400 to £4,000, considering the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that portion of the place has been let and that a firm is working there. What are the people who are paid salaries doing there? I notice that £2,900 appears on the Estimate for wages of staff. What are the staff doing? I would like to hear what they are employed at. I would also like to know if a fair wages clause was inserted when Haulbowline was handed over to the people who are using it at present. What arrangement was come to with that firm? Were they to pay anything whatever for the use of Haulbowline and, if so, was a fair wages clause inserted in the agreement? I have received several complaints about the wages paid by this firm on the island, and I would like to have some explanation with regard to the matter.

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but lest a misconception might arise in the minds of Deputies owing to Deputy Corry's statement I would like to say that Haulbowline has been for many years a white elephant on the hands of the present administration. Various suggestions have been thrown out from time to time as to how the dockyard ought to be made use of. Attempts were made to interest Irish financiers and others in the possibilities of the dockyard and it was pointed out that it was eminently suitable for at least two or three industries. Now a firm has taken over the place for the purposes of the oil industry and for oil tankers and they have been considerably facilitated by Cork Harbour Commissioners because it was felt that it was better to have some industry going on there than none at all. The dockyard was taken over for a period by a ship-breaking firm that was engaged in the breaking up of the "Celtic." That firm went into bankruptcy as a result of the attempts to break up the "Celtic," and it was considered a stroke of luck indeed when the oil firm came along and took over the dockyard. I rose to correct any false impression that might be made lest obstacle or handicap of any character would be placed in the way of persons now paying a fairly decent rental—I understand something like £650 a year at the beginning—for the dockyard. That rental, I understand, will be increased to £1,500 in a very short space of time. After all, that is some achievement and it brings in some kind of revenue to the State as well as giving employment. In dues alone the company which has the dockyard paid something like £600 on one steamer that entered Cork harbour within the last few weeks. That is some contribution made by an outside firm to the revenue of the port of Cork. This matter should be handled very gingerly and very delicately. Personally, I did not care to intervene in the debate with regard to Haulbowline because I know the position is very delicate. We were for a long time looking for some tenant to take the dockyard and we did not care where one came from. Persons of enterprise have come along and have rented the dockyard and have taken what was a white elephant off the hands of the State. I welcome the appearance of these people. I do not know anyone connected with the company, but I know they are an asset —perhaps not a very considerable asset, but, at least, some asset—to the State, and they relieved it of a tremendous amount of responsibility.

We have been discussing this item every year since Haulbowline was taken over in 1923. I am as well aware as other Deputies of the difficulty of getting a suitable tenant for this dockyard. Now, as Deputy Anthony has pointed out, such tenants have come forward and I think it should be a source of congratulation to the Dáil that the place has been disposed of. The Cork Harbour Commissioners met this firm that is concerned with the oil tanks very generously and its coming will be a source of very great revenue to the port. It will further, it is hoped, be the means of inducing shipping to use the port of Cork. I do not know the firm that has taken the lease either of the oil tanks or of the dock but I presume that the papers will be laid on the Table of the House in the ordinary course. We should certainly encourage these people to bring business there and they should not be hampered in any way. It is essential for shipping in the port of Cork that there should be an efficient repairing yard there. The yard at Rushbrooke is unfortunately in liquidation, so that the only place available now for repair work is at Haulbowline. I am quite satisfied that the Board of Works will encourage this firm, as far as possible, to deal with repairing work. I do not know in what stage of efficiency the machinery is but I presume it is able to cope with any work that may require attention at the port. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department to see that there is sufficient machinery in Haulbowline to cope with any repair work that may arise in the future. It should not go out to the shipping world that the port of Cork is not now in a position to handle repair work. A statement has been circulated that the only repair dock in the port—the one at Rushbrooke—has been closed down. That statement got wide circulation, so that I think the Department concerned should circularise the shipping world and let it be known that there is an efficient repair yard at Haulbowline. Now that we have leased the island I think we ought to take serious cognisance of the amount of money we are spending on the maintenance of the place. I notice an item of £2,900 for wages of the staff. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that there should not be any need in the near future for that item in the Vote. I have not been there recently, but I am afraid very little maintenance work is being done there at present.

I do not think that there will be any justification in the near future for expenditure of this nature if the company that has taken over the docks, buildings, and machinery are, under the terms of their lease, to be responsible for the maintenance of that property. The oil company, which has taken over the major portion of the yard, are, I presume, under their lease to be responsible for maintenance of that portion, and I do not think there is any justification now for this expenditure. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would go into this matter and see to what extent he could reduce the Vote. It is quite possible that there are other buildings and machinery there which require to be attended to. Personally, I am not aware that there is. I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary would deal with that when replying. I am informed that there was a boat or barge submerged between the basin and the dock entrance. If that is so, it will be a serious menace to shipping using the dock, and I think the matter should be attended to without delay. The longer the boat lies at the bottom the more difficult it will be to remove it.

On a point of explanation, I was not alluding to the company which has taken over the oil tanks or to the new company which has come in. I was alluding to the ship-breaking firm which took over portion of Haulbowline twelve months ago, and which have been working there since. If I understand aright, that firm has now transferred its operations elsewhere. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether or not there was anybody in charge of the machinery in Haulbowline while that ship-breaking firm was there. I have got very reliable information that some of the machinery which was the property of the State in Haulbowline was removed, and more of it broken up by that ship-breaking firm. Was it the job of that ship-breaking firm, coming into Haulbowline and taking over portion of the property of the State, for twelve months, to remove out of it some of the property of the State while they were working there? I wonder is Deputy Anthony aware of the conditions there. Does he approve of a wage being paid by that ship-breaking firm of from 4d. to 7d. per hour?

It was the oil company was in question.

I was not talking about any oil company. I am talking of the ship-breaking firm which has been operating there for the last twelve months. I notice that £2,900 was paid in wages of staff during the last twelve months. Was any member of that staff responsible for the machinery? Has the Parliamentary Secretary gone into the amount of machinery that was there when the ship-breaking firm took over and the amount of machinery there at present, or will he look into that matter and let us have some information?

The question of wages, to which Deputy Corry refers, is, I understand, a question between the firm and the trade unions.

It is a matter of importance to everybody who represents the constituency if the property of the State is to be used as a home for paying slave labour.

I raised this question with the Parliamentary Secretary before and I understand that the Department has no power to insert such a clause as the Deputy referred to in a letting agreement.

Even though they get State property for nothing.

Mr. Bourke

Deputy Good referred to two points which, I think, I answered in my opening statement. They had to do with the increase in the cost of maintenance. We had to increase the amount under this sub-head in order to lease the property. In a letter regarding the letting, it was stated on behalf of the Minister for Finance that "he is prepared to approve of the proposed lease of the oil tank installation, together with certain adjoining land, six houses and a wooden jetty at Haulbowline dockyard to the Cork Harbour Oil Wharves Ltd., at a rent of £2,000 a year for a term of forty-two years with power to the lessees to surrender at the end of each seven years; the State to be responsible for initial reconditioning of the premises to the extent of paying the cost (£200-£300) of cleaning and whitewashing the tanks; paying (within a limit of £200) half the cost of painting the tanks and paying up to £1,000 towards the cost of putting in condition and improving the jetty; and the lessees to be responsible for paying rates and maintaining the premises, as reconditioned, in the respects mentioned above and to have an option for five years to lease an additional piece of land with store houses, etc., at the additional rent of £500 a year." That accounts for the increase in the maintenance and repair charge. Deputy Corry asked what the staff are doing there. As the Deputy is aware, we have reduced that staff very considerably within the last few years. We still have a considerable amount of machinery and property to look after there and we are looking after it very carefully.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary state if any of that machinery has been removed during the past twelve months by the ship-breaking company?

Mr. Bourke

A certain amount of it has been sold. In 1928-29 plant and scrap material realised £3,268 0s. 6d.; in 1929-30 plant and scrap material realised £892 16s., and the hulk, Garnet £1,325; total £2,217 16s.; in 1930-31, plant and scrap metal realised £245 12s. 5d.; total for the entire period, £5,731 18s. 10d.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary now state what is the value laid on portion of the machinery which he described as scrap in 1930-31, and what was the value when he took it over?

Mr. Bourke

We have to go on market values. It was sold at the highest price we could get.

Were there any tenders invited for that scrap or machinery, or was it actually handed over?

Mr. Bourke

It was advertised, and it went to the highest tender.

Where was it advertised?

Mr. Bourke

In the papers.

On what date?

The Parliamentary Secretary should be allowed to proceed.

He is making a statement——

The Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to make a statement. That may seem strange, but it is, nevertheless, true. Deputy Corry himself makes an occasional statement.

I am looking for information.

Mr. Bourke

Deputy Anthony was under a slight misapprehension. The ship-breaking firm have not gone bankrupt, and we have renewed our lease with them on different terms. The conditions of that lease were laid before the Dáil, so that there is no necessity to go into them here. In addition to that, we have let portion of the western half of the island to Oil Wharves, Ltd.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary deal with my question as to the necessity of providing a sum of £2,900 for the maintenance of machinery?

Mr. Bourke

There is a good deal of property and machinery still on our hands that will have to be looked after. I believe that next year, or the year after, we will be able to reduce our staff, but at present we cannot make any further reduction.

A sum of £2,900 is required for looking after machinery that will probably be sold as scrap next year for about £250.

Mr. Bourke

It will be valuable even when sold as scrap.

It is valuable this year, but next year it will probably be sold to ship-breakers for £250.

What will be the annual charge to the State for the maintenance of this property after this deal has been completed? Despite the fact that the Minister has let the oil tanks, the wharves, and portion of the dockyard, the State charge for maintenance has been increased this year. Is it anticipated that this increased charge will be due every year or that there will be an annual charge?

Mr. Bourke

I could not say whether there will be an annual charge, but it will be less next year. This charge is necessary in order to put the dockyard into a condition that would make it possible to let it. It is an exceptional charge, and will not occur next year. It will be considerably less, but I cannot say what the figure will be.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn