Deputy O'Connell gave notice of raising on the Adjournment the matter of the closure of an industry.
Adjournment Debate: Closure of Dublin Industry.
I am prompted to raise this matter because I consider it to be one of very grave consequences for 300 workers in the Van Hool-McArdle industry in Inchicore which manufactures buses and coaches for CIE and other concerns. I mention this particularly because I consider it to be a disaster in my area in Dublin —an area which is already badly hit by serious unemployment, an area suffering an unacceptably high level of unemployment at present and where the unemployment level has been very reliably estimated at 23 per cent.
Van Hool-McArdle are making an announcement at 5 o'clock. Already they have given notice to their workers and 300 jobs will be lost. I would like to go into the history of this business. This was a lucrative section of CIE's operations. They made their own bus and coach bodies for years and provided a vital and productive boost to CIE's performance as a public company.
When it was decided to hive off this aspect of CIE, I thought it was a mutilation of an indispensable part of the parent body, CIE. If one checks the records of this House one will see that I vigorously opposed this decision in no uncertain terms as being a short-sighted and ill-advised move on behalf of CIE and the Government of the day who approved it. I do not want to apportion any blame to this Minister. It was left in his lap. I sympathise with him but I do not envy him the task he has in front of him.
When I raised this matter on 23 March 1972 the Minister of the day said the Government felt the transfer would give greater viability to the enterprise and therefore greater security to the workers. I still had considerable reservations and voiced them at great length in this House. As I said I thought it was a short-sighted and ill-advised move and was not in the interests of either CIE or the workers. There is no justification whatsoever for the closure of this operation. Not so long ago when I mediated in a strike I was given an assurance that the factory was to expand considerably and that there were firm proposals to extend the operation and have a very big factory at Palmerstown, County Dublin. I was very happy to hear of this expansion.
In my view there is a need for CIE to take back this concern because it is a vital and indispensable part of their operation. CIE need buses, coaches, replacements and so on, every year. Already there is a demand by CIE for 118 tour coaches. The amount of money involved is considerable. The making of these coaches will provide ample employment but if Van Hool-McArdle close and CIE do not take over, these buses will be manufactured abroad, in Begium, no doubt, and this will not provide much-needed employment. This would be a tragedy when we already have an unacceptably high level of unemployment. As well as the 118 coaches, normal bus replacements will be needed.
There will be an extra 300 workers on the dole. If they are made redundant this will cost the State almost £1 million a year and the Government do not want that on their hands when they could have this industry working —providing the necessary coaches and buses for CIE. It would be a fool-hardy approach to make these people redundant at a cost to the state of £1 million a year. I would plead with the Minister in the interests of the country—I do not believe in looking at this problem from a narrow party point of view and I sympathise with the Minister being faced with this problem —to return this concern to State control. It will need finance. There is a dispute between Van Hool-McArdle and CIE since 1973 about almost £800,000 which Van Hool-McArdle claim is owed to them by CIE and is the subject of an arbitrator's review at the moment. This could have caused serious problems.
I would like the Minister to seriously consider intervening personally in this to rectify this problem and return it to State control where it belongs. I will not take all the time given to me in this adjournment making unnecessary fuss about this. This is not the Minister's fault. All I want him to do is to look into the matter urgently and give a sense of security to the workers. I appreciate the fact that some of the workers will be returned to CIE, but why not return them in a productive capacity, making coach and bus bodies? I am sure the House and the country would be at one with the Minister in such a move.
I share Deputy O'Connel's genuine concern for the situation that has arisen in the Van Hool-McArdle operation in Inchicore. The company have not been in direct contact with my Department under the Protection of Employment Act but, through inquiries I have made, I am aware that problem exists there. I understand the firm have serious financial problems. I can assure the Deputy that I am pursuing with the other Ministers involved the situation that has led to the present position. The Deputy referred to the amount of money disputed between CIE themselves and Van Hool-McArdle. This has been an ongoing saga which could be described in a kind of sympathetic way as unsatisfactory. My concern and that of the Government is for the continued employment of these people, hopefully within the existing operation. As I said, the company appear to be in serious financial trouble. All avenues will be explored regarding its future. Some of the State agencies concerned have been negotiating with at least two other companies to see if there is a possibility of a future for the operation there.
I and my Government share the Deputy's concern about the workers. At that time, 180 workers were recruited from CIE and 130 of those people are still there. CIE will honour their commitment to absorb those people on the takeover of this operation. They have intimated that if the worst comes to the worst they will interview all the remaining workers and hopefully will absorb at least 100 in the Dublin city services generally. That is a fall-back position. I accept that it is not the most desirable position but it is at least a position that shows concern for the workers.
I understand that the company met the trade unions concerned on Tuesday of this week. I would have expected the notification under the Protection of Employment Act to my Department to have at least coincided with that meeting. This leaves me at a slight disadvantage in relation to giving the Deputy all the information I would have liked to have had for him this evening. I will keep in touch with the Deputy regarding developments that arise as a result of my efforts with other Departments and Ministers concerned. I assure the Deputy that the Departments and the State agencies concerned have been working on the problem that has arisen. I believe a press statement is to issue some time this evening. That statement may be misleading because it may contain statements to the effect that substantial sums of money are owed by CIE and possibly the Department of Education.
Is money owed by the company?
The Minister is in possession.
I am trying to explain. I believe it will be stated that substantial moneys are owed by the company.
There will be a claim?
Yes, there will be a claim made.
Is there any basis in the claim?
The Minister has only a few minutes.
Every time I try to explain I am interrupted in typical style by Deputy Mitchell. The Deputy is a newcomer to this House and he is probably a bit inexperienced, but he will learn.
I was trying to explain to Deputy O'Connell that I understand that the press statement will claim that substantial sums of money are due from CIE and possibly the Department of Education. Claims have been made on both CIE and the Department of Education for money due. Arbitration has long ago been suggested because the claims submitted have not been accepted. Both CIE and the Department of Education have accepted arbitration. There is no doubt that there are some discrepancies, and to say that this arbitration can be completed within the short time available is debatable. If sums of money are due from CIE or from the Department of Education, those people are right to insist that these claims be proved; but we must be satisfied about this. I understand that up to now such proof has not been forthcoming.
I hope that that explains things satisfactorily to the Deputy. I will keep the Deputy informed of developments and I assure him of the Government's concern. The commitment being honoured by CIE is a help in regard to our main concern in this situation, which is the continued employment of all or as many as possible of the workers. There are continuing negotiations with IDA assistance regarding what future involvement there could be to assist the company to continue its coach building work or to revitalise itself. The coaches should be built here, and no effort will be spared in that direction.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 7 February 1978.