Vol. 26 No. 13
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £7,400 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Costaisí i dtaobh Longlainne Inis Sionnach.
That a sum not exceeding £7,400 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, 1929, for expenses in connection with Haulbowline Dockyard.
The majority of Deputies are familiar with the position of Haulbowline. From time to time, in the Press and by means of questions in the Dáil, a considerable amount of information has been given. However, for the benefit of Deputies who may not have paid any attention to these notices, I will give a general resumé of the position.
For the benefit of those Deputies who are interested in this question, would the Parliamentary Secretary speak in a manner that we can understand?
From the day it was handed over, Haulbowline presented a first-class economic problem which has since proved insoluble. On the one hand, the island dockyard, with its dry dock, wharves, workshops, buildings, etc., represents an immense capital outlay which, although the general trade depression at the time rendered it unproductive, might, with a trade revival, become a great asset to Cork and the State. Two possible courses were then open to the Government: either to discharge the remaining remnant of the staff, evict them and their families from their houses, and close down and abandon the works and plant to rapid deterioration, or to re-engage a sufficient number of the dockyard staff to form a care and maintenance party to preserve the plant and buildings and use the yard for the execution of such Government work as could be economically undertaken. The Government, no doubt influenced by the great amount of unemployment then existing at Cobh and the surrounding district, due to the sudden termination of British naval and military operations there, and reluctant to add to the hardships of the workers and their families, but, perhaps, chiefly because the idea of abandoning the concern to ruin was repugnant, adopted the latter course, and the plant and buildings have since been maintained in good condition, fit to be quickly opened up to their full capacity for any purpose for which they are adapted. In addition to maintaining the plant and buildings, the maintenance staff carried out extensive repairs of Government vessels, and the facilities of the dockyard have constantly been afforded to local ship-repairing firms to enable them to undertake ship repair work which could not otherwise be undertaken in the district. In this way local labour has benefited considerably. Haulbowline was used for some years as a Free State garrison station, and before the opening of the new military hospital at Cork the naval hospital on the island was used as the Southern Command hospital.
The great extent of Haulbowline and the isolation from the mainland, entailing the maintenance of an extensive ferry service, place it at a great disadvantage from a commercial point of view, and it is difficult to imagine any one firm operating there economically. It has, however, possibilities of sub-division, and with a trade revival it might be possibly worked by a number of firms or individuals. But it must be remembered, when thinking of Haulbowline, that the existence of the dry dock and the oil installation are its chief advantages from the commercial point of view. Apart from these, it is doubtful if the site has any attraction for a commercial firm. However, in view of the inadequate dry dock facilities in the port of Cork, and the great percentage increase of oil burning vessels, these are weighty considerations and definitely preclude the policy of abandonment. If the present policy with regard to Haulbowline is continued, and so far as we can see it is likely to continue for some time, the maintenance cost must increase considerably in the near future, owing to the necessity for expensive repairs and renewals to the dock and jetties. On the other hand, considerable economics in the running of the service, especially the power station, could be effected by renewals entailing a comparatively small outlay, and at the present time we are taking measures to bring about these economics.
I would like a little more information than the Parliamentary Secretary has given us. I see here a figure of £10,000 as cost of dockyard maintenance. Of that the wages of the staff is £9,500. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there were extensive repairs done, to Government ships, I understood. I do not see anything about that here. But I see that there is ship repairing work done at a cost of £100, and the wages of the staff were £9,500. I suppose there was other work done, but we did not get the value of it, as far as I can see. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain.
There is an item for fuel, light, and water, £1,900, to do what is down here as £100 worth of work. Alterations also of plant and buildings £5,000. Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what that item is, and what these alterations were? I have a suspicion at the back of my mind that this dockyard is kept for one purpose, that is, that the British may have it in proper working order whenever the exigencies of the moment may require it. I am glad to find there is such tenderheartedness on the part of the Department with regard to the staff, which makes me suspicious that the staff is of a particular type also. If the same solicitude was shown to dismissed railway workers and others, some of us would not have much cause of complaint. There was £9,500 in wages to do what is here represented as £100 worth of work, and £1,900 for fuel, light and water, and also alteration of plant and buildings £5,000.
I want to ask particularly for information. I am very interested in this particular place. It happens to be right opposite my house, for one thing, and I happen to have a certain amount of knowledge of it from different points of view. It has always seemed to me a very, very difficult problem indeed to get value out of what ought to be an asset of value. It is an example of a thing which is very common in life, of things which, undoubtedly, have value but which you have not the means of turning into value. I am not suggesting, for one moment, that the problem of turning this to useful purpose is an easy problem. At the moment I want to know whether that asset is being kept in a condition to be used at a reasonable cost when the opportunity does come? As far as I can see on the face of the Estimate, it is not obvious that that is being done. I am going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary now to tell us exactly how this £9,500 of wages are made up. I want to know the number of people employed, their trade, what they are paid and what they do? I want to know who is living upon this island and who is paying the rent, or if any rents are being paid, for the occupation of the houses, on that island? I want to know for whose benefit and for what purpose in relation to this country the ferry service is maintained and its cost? You have here, as Deputy Boland said, a charge of £1,900 for fuel, light and water. I want to know whether that is justified by the actual work which is being done on the island? I do not want to make a speech on the subject at the moment because I happen to look on Estimates possibly from a different point of view from most. If the Chair permits me to say this, the custom which the House has of members making long speeches as a preliminary on Estimates does not to me seem to provide the best results. What happens is a man has a grievance in his constituency or some other matter which he wants to inquire about. He has to state the case probably as given to him from an interested source. He then has to imagine the answer which the Minister is to give to that complaint and he then has to provide the answer to the answer he imagines the Minister is going to give. That is what very largely happens in the debates here.
What I suggest is, as far as possible, to take the line of regarding the Minister in charge of an estimate as being not guilty until he is proved guilty, and that our business should be to give many definite questions to which answers can be given and of which the information should be in the possession of the Minister. Then when we have received the answers, if we are satisfied, well and good. If not, we are in a much better position to deal with the matter. It is in that spirit I ask the Minister to tell us what exactly is going on in Haulbowline, what exactly the money spent on Haulbowline is being spent for and what value we are getting for it. We ought to have some details as to what this £5,000 is expended on and whether the Parliamentary Secretary imagines that the money is going to be reproductive in any way. I ask him to tell us what is going on inside Haulbowline Island at the moment that is costing the community as a whole £21,120, that is, £17,000 in the Estimate, and £4,120.
rose.
Has Deputy Anthony a question? The Parliamentary Secretary may desire to reply now unless Deputy Anthony desires to add another question.
I have not the advantage enjoyed by Deputy Flinn of living opposite Haulbowline, nor have I the disadvantage of living so far away from Haulbowline as Deputy Boland, but at any rate I have taken the trouble to inquire into the conditions in Haulbowline and I am anxious to ask one or two questions of the Minister. The burden of the speeches delivered by Deputy Boland and Deputy Flinn appears to me to be that the dockyard is uneconomic and that, consequently, it should be scrapped. I am not going to subscribe to that view at the moment in view of the fact that I have certain information so far as employment in that dockyard is concerned. Perhaps it would be of information to Deputies concerned that in the dockyard at present there are something like 89 workers, made up, as far as I can gather, as follows:—There are 14 mechanics. Under that head would be included boilermakers, fitters, etc. These are in receipt of wages from 52/3 per week to 124/- per week. There are riggers, shipwrights and carpenters in receipt of wages from 56/- to 70/8 per week. There are 24 skilled labourers having from 45/- to 54/- per week, and 10 others at 42/- per week. There are 13 men manning ferry boats at from 52/6 to 80/- per week; 6 storemen at from 47/6 to 60/- per week—the total number employed being 89. Whilst not suggesting, as has been suggested, that this dockyard was kept there for any other purpose than that of repair and maintenance work, I am not going to suggest that it was there as one of the outposts of England. We have so frequently heard that, that to me, at any rate, it is becoming nauseous. I would prefer to have my information from the Minister without imputing to the Minister and the Government that they are keeping this institution alive for any other purpose than that of maintenance or repair. I reject these kind of insinuations. I think any man who takes even a little interest in the affairs going on around us in connection with this dockyard will admit that, at the moment, there is not sufficient work or that the dockyard does not get enough work in that particular line. I would ask the Minister to amplify what he has said and state his future policy in regard to Haulbowline. The dockyard at Haulbowline could, with very little expense, be converted into an up-to-date dockyard.
There is one regrettable feature which I hope the Minister will explain. A good deal of machinery and plant in the dockyard as handed over by the British has been dispersed and I understand that more machinery is now in the course of demolition. That is a very serious state of affairs. We have in Cork Harbour a magnificent dockyard and one which with very little expense could be put into a state of efficiency and utilised for some purpose at least. It was stated here, or at any rate we were told in Cork, that Haulbowline, if no other work could be found for it, would be converted into a factory for the manufacture of wireless parts and accessories. That promise has so far not been fulfilled. When I say that an election in Cork was won by a representative of Cumann na nGaedheal on that promise it is time that the successor of the late Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should see, if he has any influence with the Executive Council that that promise is even partially fulfilled. Haulbowline at that time in addition to giving employment to a number of people in Cobh also gave a good deal of work to the residents of the surrounding district. Though it is not in my constituency, I feel that the Government have sadly neglected their opportunities so far as Haulbowline is concerned. They talk a good deal about industrial development and about looking for sites for factories but we have in Haulbowline a place eminently suited for any business or industry requiring cheap methods of transit.
There is one of the most magnificient harbours in the world there with a splendid train service and other means of transport. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should take into consideration the fact that much of the machinery will of necessity get into disrepair, that is, any that is left in the dockyard at all, and that it would be unwise to proceed further with the dispersal of any plant or machinery there. The time may come, and I hope it will come soon, in the history of this country when, if we will not have enterprising Irishmen looking for sites for factories and workshops, such as shipbuilding yards, we will have people from outside anxious to establish industry here. In view of that, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should give a little more serious consideration to the potentialities of Haulbowline Dockyard and not proceed with any further dispersal of whatever plant and machinery may be left there. I do not think that I could depart from this question without drawing attention to an incident which occurred there some years ago. When some ships had to be disposed of, of the type that were used by the British during the Great War, a considerable amount of mystery seemed to surround their disposal. My information at that time, and it was vouched for by reliable and competent authorities, was that these ships were bought at a certain price and were disposed of some time afterwards by a private person at considerable profit. There was a good deal of suspicion, to use a very mild term, in relation to the whole transaction.
When was the transaction?
It occurred in 1924. It took place under the auspices of the responsible Free State Government Department.
We cannot go back on this Estimate beyond 1927-8. This is an Estimate for this year. We could discuss what happened last year, if necessary.
I understand that, but I mentioned the matter of that deal because there might be a danger that a deal might be made concerning some of the remaining machinery which might not be very creditable to those engaged in it, and it might be done without the knowledge or consent of the responsible Department. I hope that the Minister will give this matter more serious consideration than he has apparently done. Haulbowline, during the time of the British regime, gave an amount of employment, but since the evacuation of the British troops and ships the amount of employment has fallen from a little over 1,000 to 90 men. We believe that the dockyard could be put to some use. The activities of the Free State to-day are such that the Government would be able to find useful employment there for at least five times the number of those now engaged there. There are, I think, many avenues which the Minister should explore. I mentioned one of the promises given by the ex-Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in relation to it, and I suggest that that, or something like it, should be carried out.
I would like to inquire whether the Government has at any time approached any of the oil companies with a view to getting them to rent the tanks which are in Haulbowline for the storage of oil. What is more important, has the Government ever considered taking advantage of that storage capacity to endeavour to get an oil refining industry established? I think it is quite possible that some of the half dozen companies operating in this country and importing oil might, if a favourable offer were made, consider its acceptance. At present there is one company refining oil in Dublin. It is able to carry on in spite of intense competition, and it gives a fair amount of employment and is apparently making a success of the business. It is, however, only dealing with a small part of the requirements of the Saorstát. It does not seem impossible, so far as my limited knowledge goes, that we could get a good deal more of that oil refining business. It should, at least, be the aim of the Government, when motor spirits and other oils are costing the country a vast amount of money, to try and get something out of that. The volume of trade for motor spirit alone being over 20,000,000 gallons, it looks at least a possible industry to the State. I presume that the Government have considered the subject, but I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether that is so or not, and, if it is not a feasible proposition, what are the difficulties in the way.
In regard to Deputy Boland's question as to why the amount under sub-head B is so small, I should point out that that sum of £100 is only a token vote. As a matter of fact, the expenditure was much greater this year.
How much?
I think about £300, but I have not the figures here.
You ought to be able to give accurate figures surely.
Not on the spur of the moment. Until the year is completed we cannot say what the expenditure will be. The Government is doing a considerable amount of repair work in Haulbowline. We repaired the vessel "Dainty" which, when it went into Haulbowline Dockyard was valued at about £4,000. It has since been valued at £13,000. Since the repair work was carried out on it it has been hired to the Canadian Government at £500 a month. There is a certain amount of useful work being carried on there, but we are not denying at all that Haulbowline is a white elephant so far as the Government is concerned. All our energies are being directed towards disposing of the place, if it is possible at all to do it. Up to the present we have not been successful in doing so. Before deciding on advertising Haulbowline for sale we thought it advisable to employ an expert engineer to find out his opinion as to the exact position down there as well as to give us an estimate of the machinery that would be required and of the machinery that could be got rid of. There was no use in expending large sums annually on machinery which was redundant. Accordingly, we sent down an engineer to draw up a report on the position. I will quote from the report of that engineer as to what his views are on the present position in Haulbowline.
took the Chair.
The report states: "My investigation leads me to the following general conclusions: the only type of commercial firm likely to find the premises attractive would be one engaged in shipbuilding or ship repairing. The portions of premises most suitable to such a firm is situated east of a line drawn north and south through the hospital Camber. Much of the existing machinery, even in this portion of the island, is superfluous, and greatly in excess of any possible demands for commercial ship-repairing, and could be sold. The existing machinery is badly balanced. Great attention has been paid to the engine and electrical side of the works, but the shipbuilding and iron-working side has been neglected, with the result that a large proportion of the machinery in this section is obsolete, while the use of some of the larger machines is restricted, due to the fact that the size of the material which could be worked is already limited by the small size of machines available for other processes. It would not be, in my opinion, a wise policy to attempt a new lay-out of the yard, partly for reasons quoted under paragraph 4, and further, owing to the fact that in the event of the yard being taken, any new management would almost certainly make alterations to suit their own views. The concentration which would be effected would be very small, and by not carrying out such an operation, I am satisfied that the prospects of disposal would not be impaired. There is nothing to be gained by incurring a very heavy expense in making a general shift round of machines, such as has been mooted. The question of power plant and pumping plant wants special consideration, and in doing this, the possible results of the Shannon Scheme must be borne in mind.
"There is a large quantity of scrap of all kinds in the yard, much of which is valuable, consisting of such things as copper pipes and the like. This could be readily sold, and for purposes of sale, I suggest it should be carefully sorted. As to the possible future lay-out of the premises at the east of the Camber, I am of opinion that, generally speaking, a possible occupier would do little as far as actual rearrangement of the existing shops is concerned and, in my opinion, the alterations which would most likely be carried out would be to find storage accommodation in the way of a general store by taking either the workmen's dining hall, the paravane shed, or the present electrical fitting shop for this purpose. It might also be an improvement if the loan tool store and latrines at the back of same were removed so as to give slightly better access from the smithy to the dock side."
We are acting on the engineer's report. The staff, in addition to their other duties which are largely of a maintenance kind, are collecting this redundant machinery and getting it ready for sale. We feel that it would fetch a much better price if put up for sale in that way than if it had to be sold as scrap. In addition, there is a certain amount of salvaging being done there. There is also important work being done as regards breaking up the hulk Garnet. It is very little value as it is, but it will be of some value when broken up. It has a copper bottom. The men are also engaged on salvaging the Coralis. I am sure that Deputy Flinn or anyone who knows the position in Haulbowline must clearly realise that a very large staff is required to maintain the machinery down there. The machinery is very valuable and it requires a good deal of looking after. I do not think it is necessary for me to state in detail the various kinds of machinery there. Deputy Anthony has, in his statement, given as much detail as I could give. I gave information to Deputy Flinn, who asked for it, as well as to some other Deputies who I thought would be particularly interested as to the number of staff engaged there. I do not think there is anything further I can add on that.
The oil-tanks that Deputy Moore spoke about are of very large capacity —about 17,000 gallons. Two of them, I think, are of a capacity of 5,500 gallons each, and there are two others with a capacity of 500 gallons. If we could we would let the whole lot of them, but at the moment there is no prospect of any firm taking them over for the purpose that the Deputy has suggested.
I may say that our whole object, if we can possibly do it, is to lease these premises on favourable terms. In the meantime it would be a very serious matter to cease doing the necessary maintenance work and thereby allow these valuable premises to become dilapidated. Amongst other people with whom we have been in touch in trying to dispose of these premises in a favourable way is the firm of Messrs. Henry Ford. of Cork. They have informed us that the place is too far away from their present plant and factory. For the moment there is nothing for us to do except to carry on and try and keep down expenses to a minimum, while at the same time seeing that the machinery is kept in a suitable condition in case any firm comes the way to take control of it.
I desire to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if I would be wrong in suggesting that the British Government have still got a lien on this dockyard? I do not wish to be throwing out insinuations if it is shown that there are no grounds for them, and if I get a categorical denial of the question which I have put I will withdraw it.
Absolutely not.
In the case of necessity have the British the right to come in there? In the case of an international war is there any agreement? Can this Government absolutely dispose of that property, or is it a case like that of the police barracks we heard about to-day, that can only be let on a 99 years' lease? Can the Government hand that property over to Ford or anybody else?
The position with regard to a 99 years' lease is this: that the Constitution prevents us from letting for a longer period than 99 years.
Would that apply to Haulbowline?
Article XI. of the Constitution prevents you letting any property for a longer period than 99 years.
Then my insinuation that it is being held there, and is to be held there at this cost for the benefit of the British Government in time of war still holds good?
That is absolutely wrong.
If that can be shown I will withdraw.
If the Deputy can get a person who will take this on lease he will see whether we can let it or not.
Will an assurance be given that it will not be taken over by the British Government, say in two years' time?
Certainly. Get a person who will take the lease and we will come to business.
The Constitution notwithstanding?
A lease not longer than for a period of 99 years.
War or no war?
Yes, but it is possible, of course, to vary the Constitution by legislation. The Deputy knows that.
We frankly recognise there is a serious economic problem to be dealt with in regard to Haulbowline. None of us wants to deprive the 89 employees who are engaged in that yard of the opportunity of earning their livelihood, but from what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said, it seems to me that the best possible use has not been made of these men. We are spending £9,500 apparently in keeping a staff to maintain machinery which, according to the engineer's report, is largely obsolete, and possibly would not be used by any lessee who might take the yard for shipbuilding purposes. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that as a consequence of the engineer's report the staff is going to be engaged in collecting redundant machinery and materials.
That is only a small portion of the staff.
So far as I could follow the engineer's report, I gathered that by far the larger portion of the machinery was obsolete and that it was only valuable, to use the Minister's phrase, in the sense that museum specimens are valuable, and that it would be of no practical use to anyone who took the yard as a commercial proposition.
Some of the machinery is redundant. A good deal of it might be useful in another yard. There is one class of machinery for dealing with the large plate on ships. Machinery that should deal with smaller plate is made so that it will deal with only much smaller plates. You have that kind of lack of uniformity about the whole establishment. It is in order to get uniformity, and to eliminate materials that are unnecessary, and that do not fit in with the general engineering plan, that this survey is necessary.
Is not the case put by the Parliamentary Secretary that the portion of the machinery there which is used for heavy engineering in shipbuilding is practically obsolete? That is the impression conveyed to us, that the machinery which is not suitable for shipbuilding and which might be suitable for engine repairing or electrical repair work is altogether unbalanced, and altogether too great an amount for that dockyard, regarded as a unit.
That is a statement which I, as one who has some knowledge of engineering, was trying to get from the Parliamentary Secretary. If that is so, is it not the case that most of this staff is being maintained for the sake of maintaining it?
It is too late to eliminate the redundant part of the machinery now. The policy is to eliminate what is redundant, and only maintain what is necessary for ship repairing. Originally, when Haulbowline was a naval dockyard, a lot of the machinery was suitable for warships, but not suitable for merchant ships. That has added another complication.
What portion of the £9,500 is involved in maintaining the machinery?
I cannot give the exact proportion. I should say it would be 75 per cent., anyway.
Are the shipwrights, riggers and carpenters engaged in that?
They are, in the houses.
I was going to ask would not the staff be better employed in cutting out the obsolete machinery and disposing of it. At least, if they had cleared the site occupied by the obsolete plant, to that extent an intending purchaser would not debit the cost of that removal against the yard, and we would be getting some value for our money.
That is what we intend to do. We require only a small portion of the staff to do that.
The only quarrel I have with the Parliamentary Secretary's Department is that they are so full of good intentions. We would be very much better pleased if they had come here with realisations and told us they had cleared out those redundant items of machinery and secured some money which would go to the credit of the Vote as an Appropriation-in-Aid. One other point on which I would like some information is, as to the work of breaking up the hulk of the ship to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred—when did that begin, or has it begun?
It is well under way. We have taken about ten tons of copper off it already.
When did that work begin?
Some time in March or April.
Was there any reason why it could not be done much earlier? What we feel is that this staff has been allowed to live on that island doing nothing, and though we might accept a certain amount of responsibility for the temporary maintenance of them we are entitled to get value for the money expended.
The engineer's report was only issued in February, and we could not go on until it was issued.
It has been a problem with the Government since 1923, and they could have got the report earlier.
We are not dealing now with 1923. There were other considerations operating then that do not operate now.
Frankly, the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary has not been satisfactory. I do not want to press him hard, for I think it is perfectly obvious that the intimate knowledge that ought to be in his possession he is uncertain of. I have here a letter addressed to Deputy Mullins, and it is an example of the type of thing that is going on. He sends a letter to Deputy Mullins telling him that he is sending him some information which he has already given to Deputy Flinn. It seems that Deputy Flinn is the only person who has not got that information, though he went to the trouble of writing three times for it.
It was sent to you.
All I can tell you is that I did not get it up to this morning.
If you look for it you will find it. It was addressed to the Dáil.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered any of the questions that were asked. He has not told us what work these boilermakers and coppersmiths are doing. I can see what the plumbers have done on the houses, which apparently were part of the machinery, but I cannot see any justification yet for the maintenance, at a cost of £10,000, of a staff of between eighty and ninety people, and I do not think that any justification for it has been shown to the House. It is all very well for Deputy Anthony to go on the principle, "I will keep up the number of people employed by the Government at any price, anywhere." That is perfectly easy for him to say, and it would be perfectly easy for me to say. But the fact that this happens to be near our own constituency is no reason in the wide world why we should not face the fact that every unnecessary expenditure that can be saved must be saved, and that it is our business to contend that it should be saved, whether the contention is popular or unpopular in the districts from which we come. When the Parliamentary Secretary was asked whether the amount was only £100 he said it was very much larger than that —very much larger in relation to a total expenditure of £21,000. It was only when he was cross-examined that he thought it might be larger by £200 —£300 instead of £100. I hardly think that he is treating himself, the House, the Department or the finances of the country fairly in taking——
After all, the Deputy must remember that this is an estimate. We do not know until the end of the year what our expenditure will be.
Your estimate last year was about £100, and I think there was about £400 spent. I want to see value for the money, and the Parliamentary Secretary has not shown us value for the money.
You cannot possibly show value for the money——
We most certainly will never be able to show value for the money as long as that or any other money is being expended by people as competent as the Parliamentary Secretary. I know the difficulty of getting Haulbowline going.
Why not make a helpful suggestion, if you can do better than we can? We are waiting for it.
The Parliamentary Secretary should allow the Deputy to make his speech.
I have been trying to get the Parliamentary Secretary to reply, and the only time he will reply is when he interrupts. I know the difficulty of Haulbowline, and I know what preposterous nonsense my colleague from Cork, Deputy Anthony, was talking when he said that it was an easy problem, when he said that the site was suitable for nearly any industry, and when he said that transport was an easy matter, and was one of the assets. Transport is the really big difficulty. If there was any land connection we could do something. It is the fact that there is no land connection of a reasonable character that makes the thing like a house in the middle of a field.
Deputy Flinn ought to know this as well as I do, that is it a mile across from the island to Cobh, and are there not plenty of ships to take material into Cobh? Is not that "transport facilities"?
It costs £4,000 according to these figures merely to transport backwards and forwards the eighty working people who are not working on that island. Does Deputy Anthony know what it cost the British to maintain a mere skeleton service to bring people backwards and forwards there? If he does not he is privitively ignorant; he is ignorant of the things he ought to know, before he, a representative from Cork, knowing something about that district, comes to this House to speak about a district in Cork to people who do not know it, and to tell them of the splendid transport facilities which make Haulbowline such a great asset. I would like to see Deputy Anthony, or anybody else, invest money in wireless electrical supplies in Haulbowline.
Perhaps the Deputy may be interested in some other wireless supply companies. Perhaps the Deputy is more interested than I am in that particular topic. I am interested in the men working in Haulbowline and in their wives and families, who are supported by this Vote, and if Deputy Flinn's policy is to get these men thrown out of employment I am not with him.
Deputy Anthony has told us exactly why he made his speech——
Because I say the same here as I said on Cork City platforms. That is the difference between Deputy Flinn and me; Deputy Flinn says one thing here and another thing on public platforms in Cork.
Deputy Anthony has now thrown his hand in completely. He says that £11,000 of Government money ought to be used to employ people, whether they are employed or not.
They are employed, on maintenance.
Employed in maintaining themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary has certainly not convinced the House that they are maintaining anything else.
I cannot allow a statement like that to go——
Deputy Anthony can reply when Deputy Flinn is finished.
All right. I wanted to make one point.
He will have more to reply to when Deputy Flinn is finished.
I have given way to Deputy Anthony.
Deputy Flinn.
With all possible respect, I am entitled to give way to a member of this House if I choose. If you say not, well and good. This is the first time in this House that I have heard——
I am endeavouring to enable Deputy Flinn to make his speech without interruptions.
I do not mind interruptions.
I do.
Quite frankly, if it lost me every vote I ever got, and if it were to lose me every vote I will ever get, I will not ask the Government to spend money which this country cannot afford in maintaining those who are not giving value for it. I say quite sincerely that if the Government will show that they are getting value in the maintenance of the actual plant; if they will show us that the eighty-eight people who are employed there are doing a day's work, and are, as a result of that day's work, providing value to the State for the £21,000 which is being spent upon this thing, I will back the Government in doing it. But certainly no attempt whatever has been made by the Government to do so. How are they going to justify an expenditure of £4,000 on a transport service merely to maintain people who are questionably maintaining things a good many of which, according to them, ought to be scrapped? The maintenance of running machinery is a matter which may require considerable expenditure. The maintenance of non-running machinery is largely a question of the amount of knowledge and skill which is put into doing something which will last for quite a considerable time. The amount of money which is required to be spent form day to day on the maintenance of the machinery which is lying idle in Haulbowline ought to be very small. I had the experience some years ago of buying some machinery, and I brought it to Ireland. I could not use it, so I put it in a certain store, and three years afterwards the question of its sale arose. A man came to see it, and after doing so came back and said: "That is a lump of scrap iron." That is what it looked to him. He offered me £1,700 for the machinery, and I sold him that scrap iron for £2,500. That is the difference between maintaining machinery and appearing to maintain it. I told him then: "I thought you would send somebody to inspect that machinery who did not know anything about it." I might have painted and polished it up, but because I thought he would send an engineer to inspect it I left it in the condition in which an engineer would have left it after maintaining it for that time. That is the truth with regard to your machinery. You can cover down the most valuable portion of the machinery, and the actual cost of maintenance will be very small, or you can keep footling around it day after day.
I know Haulbowline fairly well, and there is no evidence whatever given to this House to justify the maintenance of the existing plant there at the cost at which it is being maintained. No information has been given to the House. We are anxious to have that information. We certainly started out to treat it very sympathetically, and if the Parliamentary Secretary will still give that information we will be glad, but if he does not, on public grounds, and quite apart from whatever anybody may think of my action in doing so, I will oppose the Vote, because I think it is the duty of every member in this House in every matter of public expenditure—and especially in relation to every matter of expenditure in his own constituency—to see that value is got by the State for the money. If a satisfactory explanation is not given, I, for one, will vote against this estimate.
I want to make one or two remarks on this Vote. Unlike my friend Deputy Flinn, I maintain that on public grounds the Government is justified in this expenditure on Haulbowline. I put it to Deputy Flinn or to any other Deputy: What would we think of the Government that would allow valuable machinery and plant in Haulbowline to fall into disrepair?
I am not contending that.
We are very anxious that the Government, at the earliest date, will do something with this place, either by leasing or letting it, so that it will be of some use. It will be much easier for the Government to get rid of this place if the machinery is well maintained and in perfect condition when leasing it or letting it. If the Government decided two or three years ago to vacate this yard altogether and to allow the very valuable machinery there to be neglected—and anyone who visits there will set that there is very valuable machinery there——
Hear, hear.
—and very valuable buildings there, as well as water and other important services to be maintained. If these were allowed to fall into disrepair, what would we have to offer to anyone? I do not think Deputy Flinn is quite right in his statement that the men there have nothing to do. I think each man is allotted particular work. I have gone there on various occasions to investigate these matters, and I am satisfied that each man is allotted certain work. I do not think there is a single man there who does not do something to justify his week's pay. There are also boat services. I do not know if Deputy Flinn considers them extravagant. There are a number of families living on the island. Are they to be left there sealed up in the place? What is to transport them backwards and forwards to the mainland so that they may carry on their ordinary avocations? Surely, the service is essential. I think the Government is thoroughly justified in this expenditure, and I hope they will continue it and keep Haulbowline in reasonable order until such time as they are in a position to dispose of it.
Would Deputy Hennessy give me an approximate estimate of the value of the machinery? He says there is a lot of valuable machinery there.
The Parliamentary Secretary to conclude. If Deputy Hennessy does not wish to answer Deputy Flinn's question, I am afraid I cannot make him.
I am entitled to go on under the Standing Order if I choose. unless the closure is moved.
I am not trying to prevent the Deputy going on if he wishes.
Deputy Hennessy has made a very sensible or a very ridiculous statement, that there is very valuable machinery there. What is it worth? What can you sell it for except scrap? I asked the Deputy the value of it. I want to know what is the value of the machinery being maintained at a cost of £10,000 yearly. It is not a question of letting the machinery go to scrap. It is a question of what it costs to maintain and whether it is worth it. That information I have not been able to get from Deputy Hennessy, and I have no hope of getting it now from the Parliamentary Secretary.
As a business proposition would it not be worth while to keep Haulbowline going with a view to a future purchase by a syndicate or by private individuals, all the time remembering that you are giving employment to a number of people on the island, and also to some people in Cobh who are maintaining families? I would also like to point out that on the island there is a school and other little institutions of which Deputy Flinn must know. Again, I would point out that as an ordinary business proposition would it not be worth while maintaining Haulbowline as a going concern, even at a cost of £10,000, until such time as it could be disposed of as a going concern to someone with enterprise in this country or outside it? Again, we should not forget the fact that a hundred people would be unemployed and would be thrown on to what is called the dole or unemployment benefit. These are facts which should appeal to Deputy Flinn. I am not appealing to his humanitarian instincts at all, but to his business sense
That is begging the issue. The question is whether the cost of maintenance is excessive at the moment or not.
We have listened to a great many questions tonight about the details connected with this Estimate. It is the easiest thing in the world to ask questions. A question has been asked about the value of the machinery. It is quite as easy for Deputy Flinn to get the value of the machinery from the engineer, if he is so anxious to get it, as from Deputy Hennessy. I must congratulate Deputy Flinn on the successful way he has practised his usual tactics of leg-pulling and exercising the mentality of his friend on my left.
I do not think that there has come out of this debate, as I had hoped there would, any useful suggestion from the other side to help the Ministry in what is obviously an extraordinarily difficult and very singular job. Haulbowline, as we know, is a huge problem and it is a hugely uneconomic problem. It is a problem where you have a large amount of capital value involved and immense difficulties in the way of turning the whole project into a profitable one for the country. There is only one thing to do as far as I can make out, and that is to maintain it in the most economic and efficient fashion, so that when the time ripens and use can be made of the place, it will not be a mass of ruins but will be well maintained, an efficient economic unit that can be worked. Besides the machinery that Deputy Flinn has harped about so much, he must know well that there is an immense amount of capital involved in the building, in the houses, in the stores as well as in the machinery. We all know how quickly empty houses fall into disrepair and go to ruin. There are empty stores there of immense value that would cost probably sums running into six figures to-day to re-erect. These places cannot be let go out of condition; they must be maintained. There are one hundred and one other problems of various sizes. If all the details were gone into, I believe it would be seen that this problem was being treated in an economic fashion, that the money is not being wasted, and that the men are being usefully employed in maintaining a unit of capital and of national value to the country.
I wish, in the first place, to thank the city Deputies for their fatherly interest in us, as far as Haulbowline is concerned. As one who visited Haulbowline on occasions, I wish to say that I always saw the men there working. I never saw any idlers hanging around there at any rate. I realise that this is a problem that has to be faced and a problem that has to be dealt with. But I must agree with Deputy Flinn in saying that we are not getting value for the money. I would suggest that we have a lot of repairs, and as regards the famous gunboat that does not fire any shots, the boat that goes out after the trawlers and travels half their rate, I suggest when it requires a little repairs, that she be sent into Haulbowline to have them carried out. There are also dredgers around the coast which could be brought in there, and the repairing of which would give employment for those men employed there and would bring down the overhead charges.
We have in the harbour of Cobh a first-rate harbour. But it has now become a third-rate harbour—
That is not right——
—because of the want of facilities for supplying oil to oil-driven vessels coming in there. I would suggest to the Ministry that the oil tanks there should be stored with oil for that purpose, and I think it would be of assistance to the harbour if the oil-burning ships could be supplied with oil there instead of, as at present, having to go away for it. I think all these overhead charges could be brought down, or, at least, that we could get sufficient employment, sufficient work in Haulbowline, even as it stands at present, in repairing Government vessels. This would cover the cost of maintenance, and it would not allow the harbour yard to be the dead log it is at present.
I do not know whether there is any truth in the rumour we hear as to different firms, German and others, who are going to take over this yard at each different election time. At each election time there was a new tribe coming to Haulbowline, and yet not one of them came. I suggest seriously here that——
Does the Deputy insinuate that I made such a speech during the election time or that any other member of my Party made such a speech?
Oh, not you. But there were very definite statements made. There were also articles in the "Cork Examiner" about the Germans coming there. These used to appear a couple of months before the election was on. We all know what it meant. I honestly believe that there is a lot of Government work that could be done there. There is, for instance, furniture being made for the different Departments here which could be made there. There is a lot of work of that description that could be done there by the staff that is employed there at present, and it would prevent the yard from becoming obsolete.
I would like to make clear that our general attitude on these benches is that we want the people to be kept on at Haulbowline, but we want them to do something for their keep. At the present moment, there are 89 or 90 gentlemen there who live lives of leisure. They are provided with private yachts to run them over to the mainland when they want to go there. They have thirteen ferry boat marines at their disposal. The whole attitude of the Ministry towards the residents of Haulbowline seems to be that they deserve well of the nation, and that they are to be maintained in comfort for the rest of their lives. We, who speak not for a Cork constituency, but for other parts of the country, have a duty to our constituents, and that is a duty to see that any part of the national funds that are expended will secure a due return. I think I have said that I do not wish in any way to cast a reflection upon the unfortunate people who are compelled to live in the present circumstances in Haulbowline. But I do think that the whole attitude of the Department of Finance, and particularly of the sub-Department for which the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible, is to blame in this matter. They seem long ago to have abandoned the idea that any adequate return can be secured for the amount of money that is being spent in Haulbowline. We heard for the first time in this House the report of the engineer who had inspected the plant there. I think that very fact, that it is only in the year 1928 that that report has been secured, is in itself a condemnation of the whole attitude of the Government upon this matter. Surely the report which informed the Government for the first time that a large part of the plant which it has been maintaining, at the expense of the public purse, is obsolete could have been secured in 1923, and would have enabled them to——
There was an hospital there in 1923.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean to tell me that steam-roller mills were used as beds for patients, that they could not be disposed of?
Not very well.
They could not be disposed of because there was a hospital on the island. What sort of manipulative surgery was going on that would require steam-roller mills to be kept going as a hospital? I think that the interruption of the Parliamentary Secretary only indicates the type of mentality that is responsible to the Dáil for the expenditure of this money for the past five years. He tells us that because there was a hospital in the island, they could not consider at all the question of disposing of the obsolete shipbuilding plant that was there. The real fact of the matter is, if the Ministry had made up its mind to get rid of the obsolete machinery, that instead of depreciating the value of Haulbowline they would have been enhancing it, because any prospective purchaser who goes there and sees the obsolete plant will realise at once that if he purchases the place there is a contingent liability imposed upon him of getting that plant out of the way, that it is going to be an expense and a liability, and not an asset.
These men have been drawing sums varying from £13,000 in 1926-27 to £9,500 in wages from the State, and that plant has been allowed to remain there cumbering up the site which a lessee or purchaser might possibly require for valuable machinery. The same applies in regard to the electrical end of the undertaking. We have been told that the engineer has stated that the electrical plant is altogether out of proportion to any conceivable requirements of a future purchaser. Surely the Department long ago could have made up its mind to dispose of that plant when possibly its market value was very much higher than it is to-day, because every day that that plant remains it is depreciating in value until in the course of another two or three years it will be just as obsolete as the shipbuilding plant which the engineer has reported upon.
There is another aspect of the question which the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary brought forcibly to my notice. I am not satisfied, even when the new policy which apparently is going to be adopted in regard to this yard is put into operation, that it will be pursued with sufficient energy to make it remunerative. We were told that in consequence of the engineer's report, and in order to reduce net expenditure as much as possible upon this dockyard, they had commenced to break up the hulk "Garnet" and to consider salving the collier "Alice." I asked when work had begun to break up the hulk, and we were told it began in spring. Six months and possibly more have gone by, and in that time they have recovered ten tons of copper. I do not know what the market price of copper is, but I would not think it would average much more than £80 per ton. The total net returns as a result of spending £9,500 is something like £800 at the very most for scrap copper. Surely, if the work on that hulk had been prosecuted with sufficient energy and carried out efficiently, it would have been disposed of before now, and instead of putting it to the Dáil that this work was going on at the present time, the Parliamentary Secretary would have been able to say that at the beginning of the year they started on this particular item, that they had finished it, and as a result they were £800 to the good. The work, however, has been allowed to drift on, and I feel sure that the same policy will be adopted in regard to the machinery it is proposed to dispose of.
We do not wish to oppose the Vote and deprive people of a livelihood; but we would like some assurance that whatever policy the Government has decided on in relation to the dockyard —and it is time they had some policy— that it will be prosecuted with vigour and will be carried through so that the net cost of maintaining this undertaking will be reduced to a minimum.
I have not very much to say in conclusion. The present policy of the Government with regard to Haulbowline is to maintain it as a dockyard. Maintaining it as a dockyard is a different thing from maintaining plant merely. We have to keep it in such condition that a ship coming there at any time can be dealt with in the ordinary way, in the proper way for a first-class dockyard. We have dealt with quite a number of ships belonging to Messrs. Furness and Withy, with whom we had an arrangement. We have also re-commissioned and repaired some of our own vessels and some dredgers. It has been our policy to keep the place in perfect repair as a dockyard so that we can dispose of it as such whenever an opportunity arises. In order to dispose of it to advantage, we, on the advice of our engineer, got rid of superfluous machinery and material. If, after getting rid of superfluous material, and after having advertised it for sale, we are not able to get rid of it to advantage, then we will consider whether we will do with it as Deputy Flinn seems to suggest— cease to maintain it as a dockyard and only maintain the machinery. We must do it at a much lower figure or else we will have to scrap the place altogether. In the meantime we consider that it is worth while maintaining it as a dockyard until the fullest opportunity has been given to people who might be interested. We intend to advertise it in Germany and America as well as in England and Ireland, in order to see if any firm is interested. Up to the present we see no very great prospect of proceeding in that direction.
Do I understand that the Board of Works has decided to enter into competition with private firms in regard to salvage of vessels in the port of Cork or other work of that nature, and will the machinery that is being scrapped and about to be sold, be sold by public auction or by private tender?
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has any salvage plant at his disposal capable of salving the "Alice," or has he any salvage men in Haulbowline?
We have a certain amount of salvage plant and a certain number of men for that purpose, divers, etc.
Are they capable of salving the "Alice"?
In this particular case we are prepared to enter into competition. As for salving the "Alice," and as to whether the plant will be put up for auction or by private tender, when we are about to dispose of this plant we will ask for tenders, and if we are not successful in that I expect the material will be put up for auction.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us the information which was asked for by Deputy Hennessy? What is the total estimated value of the machinery there?
I could not say that. In fact, I do not believe that the full value is available at present. That information has not been given by our engineer.
Surely, before voting the amount of money that is to be spent in maintaining this dockyard we should have some idea what we are spending it for—what is to be the ultimate result. Is the money going to be paid out every year without any idea as to what we are spending it for?
What value is meant—the original or the present value?
I want to know its value at present.
That fluctuates from day to day.
Will the President tell us the present value?
No, nor could anybody. The original cost is the figure that should be asked for.
No; the present value. It is to maintain as best we can its present value that we are spending the money. We have no idea, and evidently the Government have no idea, what they are going to use it for. They have taken no steps, apparently, to use it during the past year. This is going to go on, as far as I can see, year after year, and Deputies will be faced with the alternative of either granting the sum or turning out the present workmen. As far as I am concerned, I take the view expressed by Deputy Flinn. As public representatives, we are bound to see that money like that is not being spent without a definite purpose and a definite policy, with some hope of realisation of that policy at the end, and I see none at present.
Then the Deputy ought to vote against it.
I shall vote against it on that account.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary did he definitely state that the Board of Works are entering into competition with private firms so far as salvage is concerned?
In this particular case we will probably be the only one competing for it.
I asked that question and I am not satisfied with the reply given—whether it is the policy of the Board of Works, or the policy of the Government, to enter into competition with private firms in the salvaging of vessels or other work of that nature, apart from the particular vessel now submerged? I always understood it was not the Government's policy to intervene in these matters. Only last week——
The Parliamentary Secretary has concluded the debate. I allowed the Deputy to ask a question, but I cannot allow him to make another speech.
