asked the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism if he will make a statement on the present situation in Verolme dockyard; and the action if any he proposes to take to safeguard its future and the future of its workers.

7.

asked the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism if more redundancies are imminent in Verolme Cork dockyard; the number of redundancies; and if he will make a statement on the future of the yard.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.

The present situation at Verolme is that, in the absence of further shipbuilding orders and because of the rundown of work on the patrol vessel for the Department of Defence, the company are attempting to reduce their workforce of 670 employees by about 250. This very unfortunate state of affairs was one of the factors which the Government took into consideration in their recent initiation of special measures for the Cork region.

Government policy in relation to the future of Verolme was decided in May of 1983 and set out in my speech in the House on 1 June 1983. In that speech, I indicated that, in the absence of any prospect of further shipbuilding orders being available from either the Department of Defence or the State shipping companies, Government policy could only consist of assisting the yard to win orders on the open market by offering it the maximum production subsidies acceptable to the European Commission. It is a regrettable reflection of the state of the world shipbuilding market, both in terms of the small number of orders available and the cut-throat competition for those orders that are available, that Verolme had been unable to win orders even when quoting on the basis of production subsidies of as much as 30 per cent. Regarding action to safeguard the future of the company, if the Deputy has in mind guaranteeing the future of the company, there is no such action that can be taken. Even the placing of a further State order would merely provide temporary relief and would not alter the fundamental fact that the shipbuilding market is in a deep recession from which it is not expected to emerge for several years.

The Minister did not read this reply with the same gusto as was evident in the speech he made a few moments ago. Has he the figures as to what was the original workforce at Verolme, what the figure is today and what he expects it to be at the end of the year? It is obvious from the Minister's reply that the Government have no intention of placing with the yard further orders which could provide temporary relief. They had the opportunity of placing such an order but failed to do so. Is the Minister saying in effect that the future of the yard is very bleak? Can he say what employment prospects there will be after October next when I understand work will finish on the Department of Defence vessel.

I have answered almost the entirety of that question. The figures which the Deputy asked for are, 1,070, 670 and now a proposed reduction of 250.

To what figure is it intended to reduce the workforce?

If the Deputy subtracts 250 from 670 he will have the answer.

I would not be inclined to accept figures produced from the Government side. In response to an earlier question the Minister said that the priority of the Government was to safeguard existing jobs in the Cork area but in reply to this question he has contradicted that statement because it is obvious that the Government have no intention of carrying through any such safeguard.

That is not a question.

Is the Minister saying that there is no help forthcoming from the Government to the Cork area?

I have already answered that question. Government policy on this matter was outlined on 1 June 1983 in a speech made in the House. I indicated that, in the absence of any further shipbuilding orders from the Department of Defence or the State shipping company, Government policy could only consist of assisting the company to win order on the open market by offering production subsidies acceptable to the Commission. As I indicated, these can be as high as 30 per cent.

Does the Minister accept that there will be a reduction of 600 in the workforce and that at a press conference in Cork, when asked to quantify the number of jobs in relation to relief for the whole Cork area, he gave a figure of 400? We are losing 600 jobs now.

I do not accept that. That is a complete misrepresentation of the position and I am surprised at the Deputy.

Put the record straight.

The number of jobs in Verolme depends on the number of orders. I concede that there are proposals to reduce the number of jobs by 250. Beyond that I am not prepared to make any statement because it depends on the number of orders for shipbuilding and ship repair. As far as the job targets of the task force are concerned, I made it clear in Cork that we would not put figures on the total package because it depended on the response. The job figures I mentioned were solely in respect of environmental works and not for the entire package.

Four hundred?

The Deputy is not comparing like with like if he assumes that no more jobs will be created as a result of the total package. The total package contains much more important items than environmental works such as the free port designation and so on.

Is the figure of 400 not correct?

In respect of environmental works.

This is a very important matter for Cork.

Is the Minister aware that in 1982 a sum of £800,000 was paid to Verolme as a down payment for the building of a fishery patrol vessel? What has happened to that £800,000?

The Deputy is referring to the second vessel. In July 1981 it was decided that we could only afford one vessel.

What happened——

We have already spent 45 minutes doing seven questions.

This is very important for Cork.

It may be but the Deputy will have to find another time to deal with it.

We are trying to find out why the second vessel was not ordered.

This is a matter for the Department of Fisheries.

As a result of bureaucratic nonsense which existed the order was lost.

That was not the reason.

If the Minister read the records he would find out.

It was decided for financial reasons.

It was not. What happened to the £800,000? Give it back.