andMr. Harte asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the action he proposes to take regarding the future employment of the Killybegs boatyard and if he will guarantee that there will be no redundancies.

16.

andMr. Begley asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if it is the policy of the Government to dispose of shipbuilding yards at Baltimore, County Cork, Dingle, County Kerry and Killybegs, County Donegal to private interests.

17.

andMr. Begley asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if he will make a statement on the up-to-date position and future plans for the shipbuilding yards at Baltimore, County Cork; Dingle, County Kerry; and Killybegs, County Donegal.

18.

asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if, in view of recent reports of a run-down of employment in BIM boatyards, he will make a statement on the matter.

19.

asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if it is proposed to make redundant a number of employees at the Baltimore, Dingle and Killybegs boatyards; and if so, the number of such redundancies and the reasons for such action.

20.

asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the future employment policy in relation to the shipbuilding yards at Baltimore, County Cork; Dingle, County Kerry; and Killybegs, County Donegal.

I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 15 to 20, inclusive, together.

The operation of the boatyards at Baltimore, Dingle and Killybegs is primarily a matter for An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I understand from the board that in recent years considerable financial losses have been incurred at each of the boatyards in question due mainly to a falling off in orders for large wooden vessels. The 1978 losses amounted to approximately £1 million and at the rate of losses currently being incurred in the three yards a further loss of £1 million is estimated for 1979. The Exchequer provided £700,000 towards the 1978 losses and a sum of £500,000 is included in this year's Fisheries Estimate to cover the projected 1979 losses. Despite these losses the work force has been retained at its full complement, apart from a limited reduction arising from normal wastage and voluntary redundancies under a productivity agreement with the trade union concerned.

Obviously the board cannot continue to carry indefinitely the high level of overmanning and resultant financial losses at the yards. The position has been kept under constant review and in recent months all the options open to the board to improve the position have been considered. On the basis of the present order position 55 workers would become redundant on 31 May next.

The Government have not decided to dispose of the yards to private interests, but if a realistic offer which provides safeguards for future employment in the yards is received it will be considered. The board have fully explained the position to the union concerned and a further meeting is being held today. The Deputies may be assured that no effort will be spared by either the board or my Department to find a satisfactory solution to this very difficult problem.

Does the Minister not agree that the reason for these losses is twofold? The first is management, and the second is that there was no development programme. I understand it was suggested that £2 million would modernise the boatyards and save many redundancies. Does the Minister realise that these redundancies will cost between £1 million and £1.5 million? Surely he could give a guarantee to this House that £2 million would be spent on modernising these yards and ensuring that their operations are viable.

There was a complete reluctance to have any modernisation in the years 1973 and onwards.

Pure bull.

The result is that the sort of modernisation required would cost in the order of £6 million. In the interim period private boatyards have been constructed with the aid of grants from the IDA under both Governments. The fishermen are going to these private enterprise boatyards of their own volition. I cannot direct the fishermen otherwise in regard to their own business.

Is the Minister aware that in 1975-76 two steel hulls were built in Killybegs on a trial basis? I understand they were a profitable enterprise. When the Minister became Minister this £2 million should have been spent. He is telling this House a lot of nonsense and a lot of rubbish if he maintains that he cannot make these boatyards viable.

When the Minister became Minister the loss was nearly £600,000 and it escalated to £1 million in the subsequent year.

That was six months after the Minister became Minister.

It just did not happen like that. Let us be sensible.

There are many complex circumstances surrounding this whole sorry affair. Could I ask the Minister whether an inquiry should not be instituted to ascertain the true causes of the losses the Minister has quoted, and also to try to unearth the manner and means best suited to reviving these yards and expanding them in the future? It should not be a question of taking it from the private enterprise, which is working very effectively, but of preventing millions of pounds being spent abroad to import boats we could be building here ourselves. Is that not the real situation?

I should like to thank Deputy Blaney for his constructive suggestion in the whole area of investigating the present position in regard to boat building for fishery purposes here. This is precisely what I am doing at the moment. I am keeping all my options open and having constructive discussions with the interests concerned with a view to devising some system for these boatyards which would not lead us down the slippery slope into further losses of millions of pounds. The options open include joint venture arrangements between the board and private enterprise, private enterprise leasing arrangements with the board, or the board doing a different type of job with a more devolved or regional form of management. An investigation of the kind suggested by Deputy Blaney is under way. I am certain something must be done because we cannot allow this situation to drift.

That is a sell out.

Has the Minister any proposals before him at the moment from a private interest to lease or to buy those boatyards?

No proposals.

Has the Minister any recommendations? Did the board make any recommendations?

No proposals.

Is the Minister not aware that he informed a deputation of us this morning that the Baltimore boatyard was already sewn up and gone to a private enterprise? Does he know what he is talking about?

The Deputy is misquoting me entirely.

The Minister cannot wear two hats.

I have informed the House correctly of the position. An inquiry has been received from a local person in Baltimore connected with the boat building industry and the fishing industry, an inquiry of a general nature. That is where it stands. The Deputy should have some sense of responsibility.

I am more responsible than the Minister.

The Deputy is not.

The Minister told us this morning that Baltimore was nearly sewn up to a private enterprise.

I do not use the words "sewn up". I never used those words.

The Minister was very close to them. Could the Minister say——

I do not propose to reply to the Deputy. I will talk to Deputy Murphy.

Will the Minister not accept that it was only within the past two years that the alleged losses have been shown in the BIM accounts dealing with the boatyards? Will he not accept that in three out of the four years of the Coalition period of office all three boatyards showed a profit?

It is the fourth year that is interesting. That started the trend.

Is it not true that pressure from private boatyards is responsible for the present running down of these three boatyards by the Department and not by BIM? Pressure was always forthcoming from private boatyards to try to put BIM out of business in the three boatyards. I am personally aware of that. Will the Minister not accept that he has given in to pressure from the private boatyards and agreed to run down deliberately the BIM boatyards with a view to closing them at an early date with the resultant loss of so much employment? Will the Minister not accept that in three out of the four years we were in office there was a profit margin?

I am under no pressure at all. I am the inheritor of a situation created by the Deputy and his colleagues in Government.

Would the Minister not agree that in three out of the four years of Coalition Government there was a credit balance in the accounts of the boatyards? I know the Minister is under that pressure and acceding to it.

Order. We have had quite a number of supplementary questions. Deputy Deasy.

Can the Minister give a rational explanation for the exceptionally heavy losses incurred by the Killybegs boatyard last year? Are there any extenuating circumstances?

That is a separate question. I could go into a long list of explanations on that aspect, and I will be glad to communicate with the Deputy, but the losses at Killybegs last year were of the order of £.75 million.

Can the Minister assure the House on the basis of the situation before him at present that the employment position in these yards is to be protected? Can he give that outright assurance?

I cannot give any assurance until the whole matter is examined thoroughly.

Does that mean that no jobs are safe in these yards?

I did not say that. I do not intend to give glib assurances in this House.

Will the Minister tell them their jobs are safe?

Let us approach these questions in an orderly manner.

Since the Minister has indicated that he is inquiring very fully and comprehensively in detail into this situation, will he give an assurance that, pending the outcome or completion of those inquiries, the redundancies that are forecast for the end of May will not take effect? In other words, will he put a time limit on it and let us get a move on with the inquiry, in the meantime not paying these people off? Has he considered or will he consider in his inquiry the situation that would obtain if they are paid off, that they will not be there 12 months from now even if we find a proper and good solution to the problem?

I hope to have proposals long before the lapse of 12 months.

In May.

As regards the May matter, the trade unions at the moment are discussing with the BIM management this question of overmanning. I do not want to prejudice those talks that are taking place elsewhere in the city just now.

Can the Minister tell the House if it is his policy, and that a decision has been taken by BIM, to opt out of boat-building altogether?

No decision has been made. All the options are being examined——

Is such a decision imminent?

——with a view to ensuring that there will be no closure of the boatyards. That is my primary objective irrespective of whether it is BIM alone or BIM in a joint venture——

The Minister has answered.

——with some other firm as long as these boatyards remain open as a viable operation giving maximum employment.

I should like to ask a couple of brief questions to get to the root of the matter. Has a decision been taken to sack 159 people in these yards?

No.

What has been the decision in regard to the programme euphemistically called "rationalisation"?

Discussions are taking place now between the trade unions concerned and the management of BIM.

Then is the Minister prepared to give a guarantee to this House in regard to the jobs of those people mentioned in those proposals?

I said earlier to Deputy O'Leary, who asked the question, that I was not prepared to give any glib guarantee in the House as long as negotiations are proceeding between the trade unions concerned and the management of BIM.

May I take it that the decision in regard to those jobs is not a final one?

No.

Those people who face sacking in May——

I am not going to give any glib guarantees.

What is the position in the boatyard in regard to new orders that come up?

It is not good. The difficulty is, as I outlined in my reply, that the fishermen are making their own decisions in regard to the purchase of boats, and always have done. The fishermen are independent operators, ownerskippers, who are buying their boats to a rising degree from private boatyards that have been subsidised by the State.

A question, please.

The Minister did not deal with the question. Will new orders, if available to the boatyards, be accepted at the moment and credit made available under the marine credit plan by BIM for such orders?

Yes, there is no question about new orders as they come along.

Finally, will the moneys which the Minister indicated at one stage would be available for the development of these yards be available in the future? These moneys have not been spent.

They have indeed. An extended slipway was constructed at Baltimore. I heard Deputy O'Keeffe on a radio programme this morning. He was wrong actually.

Why has the Minister not answered the question which is relevant? Were there exceptional difficulties with regard to Killybegs boatyard last year?

There were.

Will he outline to the House what they were?

I will communicate with the Deputy in regard to that.

I think we should know now. Is it not true that the Minister is using those difficulties which occurred last year to cloud the overall issue?

This is argument. I am calling Question No. 21.

Is the Minister aware that there are at present over 20 applications for boats and that some of these are wooden boats? I understand that BIM are not sending these to the boatyards.

There is no question of that. Fishermen go to BIM and to a number of private yards and they make the best deal for themselves in the best yard. This is an impossible situation for a State organisation who seek to run boatyards from Dublin in these regions around the coast. There are a number of private boatyards competing efficiently and able to offer the fishermen better terms. The fishermen are in the market and are getting these terms.

They are the Minister's friends.

Question No. 21. The Deputy said he was asking his last question.

Is the Minister aware that the reason that is true is that boatowners have been told not to go to BIM because BIM are being sold to private enterprise?

This is argument. Question No. 21.

21.