Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Apr 1979

Vol. 313 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Boatyard Redundancies: Motion (resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann notes with grave concern the announcement by BIM that redundancies are contemplated in Killybegs, Dingle and Baltimore Boatyards; and the proposals to reduce the level of manpower to skeleton staffs in these yards; and calls on the Government to maintain and expand employment in these yards.

—(Deputy Begley.)

Mr. Blaney

I understand other speakers are anxious to contribute and since I have been facilitated I shall try to take less than the time remaining to me. Between Question Time today and the debate last night there has been a lot of discussion about this matter, but, unfortunately, the picture is no clearer after all that argument and discussion than before we started. I understand the position to be that we are dealing with three yards which are for the scrap heap in the short term. Those three yards are needed. In fact, their capacity should be expanded to meet the growing needs of our fishermen in the future. Those yards, with the skill and expertise developed over many years and generations, if disturbed for any length of time will not be capable of being put together again in our lifetime. We are also dealing with three yards at a time of transition from timber to steel, although I believe there will be a firm market for timber craft.

As far as the real development of our fishing fleet and our fisheries are concerned, steel is a must. However, we are not doing anything about it. We have not done anything substantial or positive in spite of the knowledge in the past six years that we were reaching the stage where steel was a must. We should have decided then whether to carry out the work with steel or have it done abroad, but unfortunately no decision to go into steel in any meaningful sense was taken. That decision should have been taken at least three years ago and should have been given serious consideration at least six years ago. I do not know whether serious consideration was given to it at that time, if any consideration was given to it in the interim, or if it is being considered at present. If it is just being considered now, it is too late. That is being done in panic. We would need to be careful, if we are considering a movement into steel in a meaningful way, not to arrive at our conclusions too hastily or reach the wrong conclusion at this critical time.

At present BIM are aware of 24 likely suitable applicants who are seeking steel-hull trawlers which, on average, will cost £1 million. I have no doubt that those boats will be commissioned to foreign boatyards at a loss to this country not alone in regard to our boatyards but in regard to our balance of payments. I understand that there are approximately 80 who this year will be seeking craft at an average cost of £1 million for our fishing fleet. We are talking of a very big business. I have no doubt that if we had a similar operation in relation to any other product we would be falling over ourselves to try to establish new manufacturing outlets to supply this great market. In this case the market is pressing us to supply them but, instead of attempting to do this in a reasonable way, we are running away from it and getting out of boat building, which has been in existence for so long.

The Minister and BIM should get together very soon and make up their minds that there is a big industry involved. They should bring our industrial promoters, the IDA, into this. We must seek out from private sources any suggestions or proposals of a concrete nature that could be considered in conjunction with the State on their own merits or amalgamation of State, semi-State or private enterprise. That should be looked at so that we can arrive at the best possible conclusion. I cannot see any logical conclusion being regarded as best or good enough unless we maintain and retain these yards and unless we can look forward to establishing other yards. Unless they can look forward to being useful, viable and capable of producing trawlers built with steel hulls at a proper price, we are not doing our job— something we have not been doing for a considerable number of years. It is not my duty to apportion blame nor do I care where it lies, but we have not been doing as we should have in years gone by when we had the time to do it in a reasonable way.

We are now up against exporting millions for a product which we could produce ourselves thereby providing more employment. Members should not get the idea that this is a question of the privateers versus BIM as far as boat building is concerned. It is no such thing because there is room for an expansion of both.

Mr. Begley

We should be told about Mr. Stafford. The Minister is aware of the person I am speaking of.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not know what Mr. Stafford has to do with the debate but, nevertheless, individuals who are not Members should not be referred to here.

Mr. Lenihan

Who is that gentleman?

Mr. Blaney

I am anxious to point out that we have a vast potential we are capable of meeting but which we are not geared for. However, it can be put together provided there is on the part of the Minister and the other agencies of Government a commitment to retaining the yards. There should be no question of BIM running the boatyards in future. I do not say that in criticism of BIM but in criticism of a system that has been allowed to be overtaken by the developments of our time through the growth in our fishing and the sophisticated craft fishermen need. These matters have become too big for the BIM structure. The board is not capable of running the yards and funding the price of the boats from taxpayers' money by way of loans and grants. When we speak about the legitimate claims of fishermen being entitled to go where they can buy their craft cheapest, we must also take into account that our taxpayers have a big stake in every craft that is put into the water. We should be trying to serve all taxpayers, fishermen, farmers, businessmen and workers. The best way we can serve them is by providing, within reason, anything we can manufacture here from as much material as we can glean from our own resources with only the necessary raw materials being imported. We should not allow ourselves, no matter which way we are leaning, to say that they must be got at the cheapest price even if it means purchasing them abroad. We must not say that we cannot get them as good at home as abroad. We cannot expect people to pay more for them at home than abroad, but we have to balance this in favour of the Irish economy. Everybody is concerned, whether in the fishing industry, boat building or whatever other sector they may be in. We should see that the largest proportion of everything for the fishing industry is manufactured by Irish boatyards and Irish factories. The end product will then be for the benefit of the country.

The Minister said he is inquiring in all directions at the moment. In order that this matter is properly inquired into and without a witch-hunt apportioning of blame, which it could develop into, that inquiry should be a public one. People who feel they have anything to add through information and experience over the years should be invited to give their views and their evidence. This should be a public inquiry in the true sense of fact finding, finding out what has gone wrong, what needs to be done, how best it can be done, where it will be done and by whom it will be done. I am not talking about a sworn inquiry. I am looking for something which will be a real inquiry, eliciting all the evidence and facts which will be helpful and which at the end of the day will produce the best answer in the interests of our economy, the fishermen, the taxpayers and everybody concerned.

I ask the Minister to accept the reasonable request that there will not be any redundancies until that inquiry is held. It is only if it is decided that the yards must be liquidated, that there is no future for them either in private or public hands or in amalgamation, that redundancies should be determined on. We are not dealing with unskilled workers whom we may be able to recruit any day if we want to start again. We are dealing with very skilled people who will never be put together again if they are made redundant. It would take years to build up a team of skilled workers like those again.

Those workers may be criticised in certain respects but we are not here to criticise. I want a true effort made by everybody concerned to try to find an answer to the problem, a problem which should have been seen to much earlier. There was a long discussion at the meeting in Killybegs at which representatives from the other two yards were present. A resolution was passed that night which I was surprised to hear the Minister say he did not get a report of. The resolution was that there would be an inquiry like the one I am talking about. It also asked that until that inquiry was completed the redundancies announced to the workers should not be given effect. I ask the Minister to ensure that those redundancies do not take effect.

Mr. Fox

The Minister and the Department of Fisheries obviously have a responsibility to more than the boatyards of BIM, which is a much larger organisation than one of boat builders. It has become very evident from the debate here that, irrespective of the view taken by some people, the products of those yards have not been entirely satisfactory to the fishermen who want to use them. It is also very evident that those products have failed to find a market abroad.

The suggestion that those boatyards be turned into an export industry falls flat in view of commercial considerations which are obviously applied by foreign buyers when looking at their requirements in relation to the fishing industry in Scotland, England or further abroad. The Minister is very concerned with the wellbeing of the fishing industry and he has to have consideration for the fishermen who use those boats. He must ensure that they are provided with the best possible equipment. Those men are not going into a factory, they are not going down the road in tractors, they are not doing a safe, sedentary job. They are going out on the wild seas risking their lives and bringing back their harvest to our ports. We have had unfortunate tragedies in this industry in the last few years. It would be totally irresponsible to expect men to go to sea in boats which were in any way suspect.

Mr. Begley

What an aspersion to cast on the BIM boats.

Mr. Fox

That is an aspersion which I will stand over. I have a file here of correspondence which BIM refused to answer.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Begley please cease interrupting?

Mr. Fox

If we are providing a product for a man it has got to be seen to be right as well as being right. I want to quote from a letter from BIM, who on occasion have refused to give letters. This letter states:

The information supplied has been passed to the boat-building manager for his observations on the allegations made by the owner. When the matter has been fully discussed I shall communicate with you again.

That letter was sent on 4 August 1978. I have a letter here which I wrote to the Department with a three-page list of defects on one particular boat. In the engine room alone there were 13 major faults. Independent tests were done by Napier's of England on stability which showed that a boat produced by a BIM yard was totally unsuitable. I can give documentary evidence in relation to the type of faults which were found in those boats. If the Deputy thinks that I will stand in this Chamber representing the fishermen of Skerries, Balbriggan and Howth and not make this thing public he had better think again. If our boat builders are going to produce something they have got to stand over it the same as factory workers producing their export goods have to stand up in the international markets.

The Minister has a responsibility not alone to the boat-building industry but to the users of those boats to make sure they are right. He is discharging that responsibility in a courageous and imaginative way. He will give an opportunity to those boatyards to do a worth-while job and get out of the morass of inefficiency and liability they got into under four years of total mismanagement. We were told that the profits were all right under the Coalition administration. The profits, according to my information, were very small and intermittent up to 1975. I challenge the Deputy to give viable figures on profitability in relation to investment and turnover figures in those yards when the Coalition Government were in power.

Allegations were made in the House that those yards were viable until the change in Government. I am attempting to demonstrate that this was not so. A pattern set in during the period of the inter-Party Government which became very evident immediately Fianna Fáil came to power. The Minister obviously has to discharge his obligation to the taxpayers. He has to see that the money the PAYE people contribute to the running of the country is spent in a responsible manner. Those who work in the BIM boatyards have a heavy responsibility to ensure that they produce goods that are up to the highest international standards. Unfortunately in many cases this has not been the case and the whole industry has to be looked at objectively. It has to be put on a viable footing and I have no doubt that these men are capable of doing that. I have no doubt that with proper direction from a Minister who is concerned they will be able to produce a product that will stand up on the international markets and be acceptable.

Mr. O'Keeffe

How can they do that if they are sacked?

Mr. Fox

It is their responsibility to do this in competition with our EEC partners. We are now in a competitive situation so far as boat building is concerned and whether we like it or not the people in the industry will be in competition with boat builders from Scotland, Holland and so on. If the rest of the economy can do it, there is no reason why the boat builders should not do it as well.

The lack of innovation in the boat-building industry, and in BIM in particular, in the past few years has been frightening. The only two materials mentioned in this Chamber in relation to the production of hulls and boats have been wood and steel. These two materials have been used in the production of boats for centuries. We have had vast improvements in hull design and production and in new building materials in the past ten or 20 years. GRP has found a usage all over the world but it has never been considered as a material by BIM. It is used by some of the smaller yards here for pleasure boats and smaller inshore boats. It is used abroad for sizeable trawlers and for commercial use but it has never even been suggested for use in this country.

The other material that is in use worldwide is a native material but, again, it has never been considered here. I refer to ferro-cement. This material is in use throughout the world. It was pioneered in New Zealand and is in use in the United States and England. We have a large cement industry here but the use of that material for boat building has never even been thought about and in my view that is a total scandal. It has not been used by BIM.

Mr. Blaney

It is used here.

Mr. Fox

I said it has not been used for fishing boat construction here. It has been used for small pleasure craft but it has never been used by BIM for boat building. I challenge anybody with information to say that BIM have used this material for boat-building construction. It is a rather heavier material than the others mentioned but as such it would have a certain advantage as far as fishing boat hulls are concerned. It would have a certain inherent advantage over some of the other materials.

It has not been mentioned in the debate that certain standards must be set in the production of the boats. There must be consideration for the comfort of the fishermen and for standards of safety. I seriously challenge and question the attitude of the BIM yards with regard to the safety factor of the boats that have come on the market in this country in the past few years. How many instances have we had where proper equipment from the safety point of view was not supplied with the boats but this has not been mentioned in the debate. In the reappraisal the Minister is doing of the industry I urge him to study this aspect very seriously.

The standards we will apply will have to be much higher than in the past. We are in Europe now and we have got to be as good as the best, if not better. Our fishermen deserve the best possible products but they have not been getting them. The standards that have obtained in relation to safety equipment, and occasionally even navigation equipment, have not been acceptable to the more progressive of our fishermen. This has forced them to go abroad. Skippers will say that they would love to buy Irish boats and to buy from BIM but they cannot do so. Other skippers will tell one that they had to buy from BIM because they sell their fish through BIM, are getting finance from them and, consequently, cannot buy elsewhere. In many cases BIM abused their position as suppliers of finance in order to keep men in inefficient employment. Our Minister sees the position. He knows that £1 million a year of taxpayers' money is being spent. He must answer responsibly to the taxpayers, to the fishermen and to this Chamber. He is acting responsibly in this debate and I know he will act responsibly towards the industry.

The only chance the industry has is to appraise its attitude towards its own product. In conjunction with the imaginative and forceful thinking of the Minister, the industry can ensure that there will be a future for the yards. There can be a future with co-operation, there can be a future if the Minister's attitude is allowed to permeate down to the workforce. The Minister is concerned for the men and the industry. It cannot be allowed to stagger from loss to loss, from one bad product to another. The Minister is aware of the position and there is no doubt that we will change it around completely.

Reference was made to the steel boats produced in this country. To my knowledge very few of them were produced. They are mainly conversions from hulls produced on the continent. Two of them are in my home port of Skerries and they are two of the finest boats fishing these waters. They fish not only on the east coast but also on the west coast and they are doing very well for the skippers. The objective fact is that hulls of that type were incapable of being produced in this country. The finishing work on them was of a high standard and their operation by our fishermen is very satisfactory. The fact is that the industry is not in a position to build 90-foot steel hulls at the moment and it had no encouragement in the four years of inter-Party Government to equip itself. Obviously the Minister is concerned about the matter and I know he will do something about it.

Last night and this evening we have listened to the greatest load of old rubbish in so-called concern for BIM boatyards. If that concern were genuine there is no doubt that something more constructive would have emerged and something would have been done in the four years during which we were in Opposition and when I was not in the House.

Mr. Begley

This is probably the Deputy's swan song.

Mr. Fox

Living as I do in a fishing village I have close knowledge of the problems of the skippers. I know they must have the best products. They are entitled to that. They have to comply with the fishing regulations laid down in Brussels and they are entitled to the best that Europe has to offer. If Irish yards can provide that, well and good; if they cannot provide it, they are entitled to go to Europe and get the best that is available there. The challenge is before the BIM yards, put to them in a fair and honourable manner. They will be given the opportunity to meet the challenge and it is up to them to supply the goods to the men who have to go out to sell the product in competition with others. We are selling fish now: it is not a huckster shop operation any more; it is not a boy with an ass and cart going down a village street trying to sell fish——

Mr. Begley

There is nothing wrong with the ass and cart.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Begley should try to restrain himself.

Mr. Fox

The Minister wants to establish this industry on a proper footing.

Mr. O'Keeffe

He wants to close it down.

Mr. Fox

He is expanding it. I hope to have the pleasure in the next few weeks of standing in Balbriggan and seeing another new factory coming in, a fish food processing plant, not just fish processing. The help the Minister has given in that respect will give some encouragement to the Irish yards to work towards the expansion of the food processing branch of the fish industry.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Would the Deputy like to come to Baltimore to see the dole queues?

Mr. Fox

The Minister will give them the opportunity and it is up to them to take it. If they are incapable of taking the opportunity, the Minister cannot go down to them and say "Here you are". The Minister can only provide a vehicle through which people of initiative can progress. If the people referred to by Deputy O'Keeffe have not got that initiative, then it is his problem. Personally I do not believe it. There is plenty initiative. Our fishermen have the initiative and the ability to progress. I have no doubt the Minister will give the yards the chance to provide the type of boat the industry requires. I have no doubt that under this type of encouragement the yards can look forward to a sensible rational programme of development.

Unless the industry is taken as a whole it cannot expand. I suggest to the Minister that when he is formulating proposals in relation to the yards he will get away from the situation in which a fisherman is under the impression that because he is selling his fish to BIM, because he is getting his finance from BIM, he must buy a boat from BIM. That is one of the greatest reasons for the difficult situation BIM now find themselves in from the point of view of the boatyards—there was torpidity, they were having an easy ride in a nocompetition situation. Because of a closed shop the fishermen could not go anywhere else, or they had the impression they could not, and this led to inertia in certain quarters of the boat-building industry. The Minister has seen this difficulty and he must turn it around and make the industry viable again. I have no doubt that he will, in spite of these obstructive tactics and destructive observations that have been coming from the Opposition.

Mr. White

I have never heard such a despicable attack on a semi-State body as that launched by Deputy Fox. The position is that the Minister is responsible for this position, not BIM. It is he who has to come to the House looking for the money. Fianna Fáil are blaming the boatyard workers and BIM. I have never listened to such hogwash. The Minister's statements today will make sad reading for the boatyard workers.

We heard from the Minister what the future holds for Killybegs, Baltimore and Dingle. Does the Minister agree with Deputy Murphy that these yards made a profit in three out of the five years of Coalition Government? Does he agree that when he became Minister in 1977 these yards were viable?

In his speech on this motion yesterday and in reply to questions today, the Minister stated that this was not a viable industry when he became Minister. The BIM chairman stated that also when they launched the two boats which Deputy Fox said had gone to Skerries. At the end of 1977 the Minister complimented the boatyard workers in Killybegs on the tremendous work they were doing. I will quote a newspaper report at that time:

Their interest will be fully protected and enhanced. There is a total commitment to development of the marine resources and the way of life of Irish fishermen.

The heading on that report was "Lenihan Pledges to Fight for the Exclusive Limit". That is a laugh now. He stood in Killybegs and said he would fight for the 30-mile limit, which we all know has gone——

Mr. Lenihan

The Deputy has got the figure wrong. The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. White

Sorry, the 50-mile limit. Was it 30 or was it 50? The Minister has forgotten. He pledged himself to the workforce in Killybegs, which then stood at 130. He said that the next time he came back to Killybegs he hoped to see the workforce increased. What has happened since 1977? Has the Minister spent the one-and-half years sleeping in plush chairs.

This is a serious thing. I am delighted to see at least one Fianna Fáil Deputy from Killybegs listening to the debate. I hope we will have the pleasure of hearing him backing up Deputy Fox. The Minister has washed his hands completely of the three boatyards. His references to expansion have become references to redundancies. I agree with one thing Deputy Fox said: we all want to see the boatyards become viable. There can be no argument about that. The difference is that on this side of the House we say that £2 million or £3 million should be spent on a modernisation programme in our yards to make sure that steel hulls can be built, particularly in Killybegs. We should also like to see money spent on the Dingle and Baltimore yards in order to modernise these tremendous sources of employment.

Boat-building is a traditional industry. It involves generations of craft handed down from father to son. If we make these people redundant in the next couple of months, they will have to try to get alternative employment and their skills will be lost to the boat-building industry. What will we then do when the need arises for extra boats? There are 320 people employed in this industry. If they become redundant in the morning it will cost the Exchequer at least £1½ million in redundancy payments and unemployment benefit. BIM told the workers today that if these yards were modernised it would cost not £6 million as the Minister told us earlier but £4 million. That would be the equivalent of about two years in terms of unemployment and redundancy payments and if we break down the figures further they would represent about £3,000 per job in terms of making the boatyards modern.

The figure of £4,500 arrived at by the IDA is the price to be paid for inviting any foreign industrialist to set up here. We on this side of the House are not prepared to accept that these three boatyards must close. Instead of selling out to private enterprises the Minister should persuade the Cabinet to sanction the necessary moneys to make the boatyards viable. With the right management and the right organisation they can be made viable. It is a ridiculous situation that BIM should be engaged as a business concern both in the selling of fish and in giving grants for boats. From a business point of view, too, it is ridiculous that the chairman of the board is also the chairman of the board of directors.

It is ludicrous that BIM do not have a representative in the boatyards at Killybegs, Dingle or Baltimore. We have the workers in the boatyards but we need a first-class manager who would be put on the board of BIM and given the money to get on with the job that is so necessary in terms of our expanding fishing fleet. It is general knowledge that sanction is awaited from BIM in respect of more than 20 boats, two of which are 75-foot wooden boats. One of these could be built at Dingle and the other at Baltimore. Sanction is awaited in respect of at least 18 steel boats of between 90 to 120 feet. Why should we spend about £36 million to have these boats built abroad when we have the skill and the labour to carry out the work here? Have Fianna Fáil gone mad completely to even think of sanctioning such a project? The Minister should consider seriously the setting up of a new management board.

Deputy Blaney referred to the setting up of an inquiry. We would welcome such an inquiry but I should be apprehensive that it might have the result of letting the Minister off the hook. What is needed is an on-going inquiry into the audit figures such as happens in the case of any other business. There is no reason for semi-State bodies being exempted in this regard. Surely the Minister realised about 18 months ago, when he visited Killybegs and told the workers there that the industry was viable and that output should be increased, that the management was not what it should be. It was his responsibility then to ensure that the management was changed and the workmen given a fair deal.

Three steel hulls were built at Killybegs in 1975, two of which were launched by the Minister. My information is that these two hulls proved to be profitable concerns. I understand that their building was commissioned by the Coalition on a trial basis, on the basis that if the project was successful Killybegs would be modernised to build steel boats. I need not remind the House that it was unfortunate for Donegal that there was a change of Government and that the new Government did not make any plan in respect of steel. Any sensible businessman would not sell a business, be it a hotel or any other, in an area in which there was an expanding fishing industry.

Today the Minister asked how the boatyards in the three areas concerned might be managed by someone working in Dublin. This should not pose any problem if there is proper management. Management is conducted satisfactorily in this way in the supermarket and hotel industries, for instance. There is no reason for State or semi-State operations not having the same degree of competent management as that which applies in the private sector. What I fear is that if private concerns buy the boatyards cheaply there will not be a guarantee that the figures of 120 or 180 in respect of Killybegs will be maintained, that instead the yard would be working with a skeleton staff merely on repairs.

Surely the Government are not thinking merely of a repairs operation for wooden trawlers at a boatyard such as that at Killybegs which can boast of 32 year's experience. I realise that some of the fault has been with management, that some of it has been on the part of BIM, but the blame ultimately must rest with the Minister for Fisheries, who, having sold out in respect of our fishing limits, is now prepared to render the workers in these boatyards redundant.

Mr. Treacy

We are dealing here with a very sordid business. It is tantamount to an act of national sabotage on the part of the Minister. Undoubtedly, the decision to close these boatyards was made at Government level.

Mr. Begley

Hear, hear.

Mr. Treacy

Never during my experience here have I heard such a concerted, premeditated and vicious attack on a semi-State body as I heard this evening from Deputy Fox. His was an appalling speech, and all the more so coming from Government benches while the Minister sat there quietly, not making any attempt to defend the body for which he is directly responsible.

Mr. Begley

Perhaps the Minister wrote the speech.

Mr. Fox

How many boats were built during the term of office of the Coalition?

Mr. Treacy

This industry is in its death gasp. It is bad enough to decide to sack the men concerned but it is a sorry situation to slander them and to blame them for the situation. Clearly it is not in the best interest of this nation that this important adjunct of our fishing industry should be handed over to private enterprise which is concerned primarily with the question of profit and will not have regard for the welfare either of the fishing industry or of the men concerned.

Contrary to what has been said by the Minister regarding the reason for closing the yards, I wish to demonstrate that the history of boat building here has been a history of success and profitability and that there has been harmony and co-operation among the men concerned. It is worth noting that there has not been a strike in the boatyards while they have been under the aegis of BIM. That is a proud boast, but it is to the eternal disgrace of the Minister that he is prepared to disregard these loyal, courageous and devoted craftsmen and to relegate them to the unemployment scrap heap.

For the year 1970-71, the figures for the boatyards showed a loss of £16,833; for 1971-72, there was a profit of £21,370; for 1972-73, there was a profit of £34,530; for 1973-74, there was a profit of £52,000; for a nine-month period in 1974 there was a profit of £10,539; and for 1975, the high point of the Coalition Government, there was a profit of £108,031. In 1976-77, with the advent of Fianna Fáil, we find a loss of £187,202. Under the Minister's administration in 1977-78 we find a loss running steeply up to £542,569. In this year we again find a loss of more than £1 million. These are the facts. That is why I wanted to nail down the lie that the workers in BIM or BIM have been responsible for the situation.

The labour force in these years was pretty good. It was 143 in 1970-71, 148 in 1972, 164 in 1973, 242 in 1974, 318 in 1975, 295 in 1976, 285 in 1977, 260 in 1978. I gather that the present figure under the Minister is 241. Therefore, it will be seen that under the Coalition Government the high point of profitability was more than £108,000 and that the labour force was at peak at 318.

Now it is proposed to change that situation. The shocking proposal is that the workforce be reduced from 241 to 159 and that the redundancies continue over the next 12 months until only a skeleton staff is left in the three yards concerned. Boat building is to cease and only a few men will be left by this time 12 months, doing what I do not know. It is alleged that they may do some repairs. All that is required of the situation is an injection of capital to put these yards in a viable position once again. It is a sobering thought for all workers in State bodies and local authorities, and a revealing situation for the unemployed, that this kind of thing could happen under Fianna Fáil, having regard to their programme for job creation and full employment. They made these promises prior to the general election.

The profits made in 1975 and 1976 under the Coalition Government have now been turned into a colossal loss by Fianna Fáil. This is a frightening situation of gross mismanagement, a betrayal of trust on the part of the Minister and BIM and of the confidence reposed in them to maintain, sustain and develop this semi-State enterprise. It makes a mockery of Fianna Fáil's promises in respect of job creation.

How could profits and efficiency be maintained in the boatyards of BIM when it was the deliberate policy of the Minister to run down these yards? In my opinion it was a sinister and effective exercise on the part of the Minister. All the important key personnel were removed from these yards in stages. Apprentice training officers were removed and never replaced. What sort of a sign for the future was the abandonment of the apprentice training scheme? Is it not a fact that the training of apprentices ceased some time ago? How could we have efficiency when the chief naval architect was removed to another post and not replaced? Why did that happen? Is it not a fact that design craftsmen were eased out, that design engineers were transferred or compelled to leave and never replaced? How could we have efficiency and full employment when the order processor or the works programmer was removed and never replaced, when even yard managers were removed and never replaced? This was a coldly-calculated and deliberate method for the destruction of these yards. This was a sell-out to private enterprise. This brain drain continued for the past two years under Deputy Lenihan, the Minister for Fisheries. The yards of BIM were left leaderless, bereft of funds, bereft of orders, bereft of management and expertise. In that situation how could they but fail and go down the drain?

The Government and the Minister made a conscious decision that the boatyards of BIM would no longer be allowed to compete with private enterprise, that BIM were to be sacrificed on the alter of private profit and greed. This is essentially a shameful sell-out by Fianna Fáil to the tacateers in shipping. A sworn inquiry into this sordid business is the only thing that will suffice. I agree with my friends who said here tonight that there are people on the other side of the House whom I would not have within an ass's roar of that inquiry because they could not be trusted.

The Minister said that the yards will not be closed but that the work of boat building will cease. At best, a few men will be retained to do some minor repairs. Why does the Minister not tell the truth to this House? If he was serious in seeking private enterprise to assist in operating these yards would it not be practicable to retain the entire labour force rather than sacking them and scattering them to the four corners of the world. In a situation like that it is obvious that these yards can never again be utilised for boat-building. The Minister knows that if the labour force is depleted to the extent contemplated by him, these yards as boat-building places will cease to exist and cannot be retrieved. The destruction of BIM has been carefully contrived and none of us on this side of the House has any doubt about it.

Last night the Minister told us that his solution to the problem was to apply surgery. He has taken upon himself the role of a—I was going to say the role of a butcher, which might be more appropriate—surgeon. He said he is about to perform surgery. I suggest that what he has done and what he is doing is surgery. He is cutting the throats of some 200 workers in the yards of BIM. The surgery is in the nature of a stab in the back. The Minister has taken upon himself the role of a surgeon who is operating on a lifeless corpse, he having drained that body of its life's blood over the past two years. It would be far better to bury this body decently rather than engage in this shabby pretence.

There is nothing wrong with the BIM boatyards in Killybegs, Baltimore or Dingle that an injection of capital would not cure. The body to which we refer is basically quite healthy. It is admittedly badly run down but it can and should be revived. It is simply suffering from a bad dose of Fianna Fáil-itis or, more appropriately, Fianna Fáil profiteering. All that is required is a transfusion of the right kind, but I am afraid that the Minister and the Government are not likely to embark upon a revival of boat building. The vested interests would seem to have triumphed and the workers of BIM are being used as pawns in a despicable game.

The reason for the uncompetitive position of the boatyards in question is essentially the failure of the Minister to properly oversee the work of BIM. It was the Minister's responsibility to ensure that BIM fulfilled their obligation to safeguard the future of the workers. The Minister and the Government stand indicted and condemned in this regard. Inadequate facilities result in inefficiency. BIM made no attempt to invest adequately in the yards. The rate of investment in each of the yards is about one-third of that of its main competitor in private boat building in this country. I do not wish to mention the name.

The Minister is dealing with a group of men renowned for their sincerity, integrity and devotion to duty. This is evidenced by the fact that there was never a strike in the yards of BIM. These men are not in any way responsible for the situation, despite what Deputy Fox said. It would be a crime against society in general to victimise them now by throwing them on the unemployment scrap heap. I understand that a productivity deal was recently considered by the Minister and some of the unions concerned. This deal was designed to create greater efficiency in the yards of BIM, but it never got off the ground. The Minister never treated with the men concerned with regard to the implementation of this worthwhile scheme. This extension of good will and co-operation on the part of the men was rejected by the Minister and we must ask why the productivity deal was discarded in this fashion.

Why are the BIM yards being scuttled, while the Minister is refusing to extend a lifeline? The yards can be saved and the jobs of the workers can and should be saved. Their future life is in the hands of the Minister and God help them. The Minister was elected to safeguard and promote the welfare of these yards and the workers therein. I appeal to him to do his duty by the Irish people or else do the honourable thing and resign. He has already brought nothing but havoc and ruin to the fishing industry and the sooner he goes the better.

Mr. Conaghan

I wish to put on record some points in relation to this problem. I am mainly concerned with the people employed in these yards, particularly in the Killybegs yard in my own constituency.

Mr. White

I hope Deputy Fox hears that.

Mr. Fox

Deputy Conaghan has a very good record and looks after his constituents.

Mr. White

He was not at the meeting in Killybegs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Conaghan has only ten minutes and should be allowed to speak.

Mr. Conaghan

I did not receive notice of the meeting in Killybegs and, therefore, I did not attend it. It is unfortunate but it is not relevant now.

We must accept that the problem did not arise today or yesterday. There should have been some forward planning during the past few years in regard to modernising these yards to meet the presentday demands. The fishing industry has expanded immensely in recent years and the previous Government must accept responsibility for the present situation. The last speaker mentioned that the run-down took place when this Government came into office, but if he checks the record he will find that the movement of personnel from the boatyard began when the Coalition Government were in office. A clear indication was given that they were endorsing the policy of running down the boatyards and unfortunately we have inherited this problem.

Fisherman now work extensively and require large boats. They are demanding special types of boats which we cannot produce in the yards concerned and the fishermen must purchase elsewhere.

Mr. White

That is not true.

Mr. Fox

Ask the fishermen.

Mr. White

The boats in Skerries are all right.

Mr. Conaghan

About £1 million was lost last year in the yards. Nobody can expect such amounts of money to be poured into these concerns if they will not be able to produce.

Mr. Begley

The Deputy wants the yards to close.

Mr. Conaghan

I do not want the yards to close. I am confident the Minister will see to it that the yards will not be closed and will be modernised.

Minister for Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Lenihan)

They will not close but they will be properly run.

Mr. Begley

The Deputy does not know what the truth is.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Conaghan should be allowed to speak.

Mr. Conaghan

This Government have poured millions into BIM and major developments are taking place in Killybegs and Greencastle.

Mr. White

That was planned under the Coalition.

Mr. Conaghan

The Government are pouring money into the development of fishing ports and it is not reasonable to say that boatyards will be allowed to close down.

Mr. White

That money was passed by the Coalition.

Mr. Conaghan

We provided it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy White has already spoken.

Mr. Conaghan

In view of the possibility of redundancies taking place or of the yards becoming run down, I would appeal to the Minister to see that the yards—in particular the Killybegs yard—are equipped to handle repair work and the fitting out of boats whose hulls may have been obtained elsewhere. There is an outlet here for development. I agree with other speakers that the situation in which purchasers of boats are financed by BIM is not a healthy or a proper way in which a business such as this should be conducted.

If there is a possibility of an independent body being allowed to run the yards and operate them, this would be far better for all concerned. This must be looked at. If a private concern were to take over the yards and run them and provide the work for the workers who have the expertise, the people concerned would accept that and be content with it. The concern we are expressing is here tonight is about the possibility that the highly-skilled people who had gainful employment would have to move out and go into other types of employment with the result that we would lose men who developed their skills and their expertise over the years. That should be kept in mind.

I suggest to the Minister that there should be an inquiry into the operations of the yards. There would be a full-scale inquiry into all details and all aspects. Where changes which would benefit all the people concerned can be made they should be made. Every effort should be made to see that everything that can be done is done to find a fruitful solution. The only fruitful solution which would be accepted would be that the yards should be made viable again and that there would be a future for the people concerned.

The fishing industry is expanding and becoming a major industry. We have no major shipbuilding yards in this country with the exception of the Belfast yard. It is unfortunate that a maritime country like this has not got yards fully equipped to cater for the needs of the fishermen. Unfortunately, they have to go to Scotland, England and elsewhere to get special boats built to enable them to operate the present day methods of fishing. Unless you are in fishing in the proper way, there will be no future for you.

The Meevagh boatyard in Donegal, which is operated by a private concern, is running at a profit and providing gainful employment. That augurs well for the possibility of the yards in question being taken over by some company who would wish to operate them. I would ask the Minister to see that a comprehensive inquiry is carried out into the problem and that every endeavour is made to retain the much-needed employment which is involved.

Mr. Deasy

In supporting this motion I want to associate myself with the remarks made by Deputy Treacy condemning the contribution, if you could call it that, made by Deputy Fox. It was shameless, as despicable and as cowardly an attack on working men as I have ever heard in this House.

Mr. Fox

There was no attack on working men.

Mr. Begley

Say it outside the House.

Mr. Deasy

It is a typical Fianna Fáil gambit. When things go wrong, when they make a mess of things, they blame the unions and blame the working people. This is as good a time as any for the Minister to stand up and fight for the livelihood of the people he was given a mandate to protect, the people engaged in the fishing industry and ancillary industries. His record up to now has been shameful.

Mr. Begley

Disgraceful.

Mr. Deasy

It is riddled with weakness, indifference and downright capitulation to foreign interests. Last night Deputy Begley compared him to Cromwell.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Deasy may not make that sort of allegation.

Mr. Lenihan

He has nothing better to say.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That sort of charge only creates trouble in the House. Deputy Deasy should not quote Deputy Begley because Deputy Begley was wrong last night and he knows that.

Mr. Deasy

A more fitting comparison would be with Pontius Pilate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That will be withdrawn straight away. No Member of the House may be described as Pontius Pilate. That will be withdrawn. The Deputy is wasting his own time.

Mr. Deasy

The Minister washes his hands of any problem.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Deasy will withdraw that remark. Is it withdrawn?

Mr. Deasy

Fair enough.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is withdrawn.

Mr. Deasy

When there is a critical situation in fishery matters the Minister does not want to know about it. He chickens out. I could give a number of instances. Contrary to the Minister's party's pledges at the last general election, the minute he was elected to office he conceded our right to a 50-mile exclusive fishery limit. He promised many other things, including the eradication of illegal netting for salmon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with employment in boatyards.

Mr. Begley

Let him continue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will not let the Deputy continue if he is not relevant. Deputy Begley will not run the Chair.

Mr. Begley

I never tried to do so.

Mr. Deasy

Boats are also used for salmon fishing. Now we are witnessing the demise of our native boat-building industry apparently at the behest of the Minister. From the Minister's performance over the past two years it would seem that he would be happier if there were no fishing industry in Ireland. We have had a series of proposals which would lead us to believe that. This most recent case is a prime example. We had suggestions from the Minister that the Spanish, the Danes and the Norwegians should do our fishing. The inherent suggestion in the latest proposal about these redundancies is that the British and the French should build our boats.

When Deputy Fox was speaking the Minister in charge of the Buy Irish Campaign, Deputy R. Burke, came into the House. He made as quick an exit as ever I saw. He must have been hanging his head in shame at the disgraceful aspersions which were cast on the competence of Irish tradesmen. What hope has the Buy Irish Campaign got when we have a condemnation of our very skills by a member of the Government party? The Minister seems to be determined to make sure that everything used in the fishing industry from a needle to an anchor, and that includes trawlers, is manufactured outside this country. That will be the situation if the Minister's desire comes true.

We all know that for years BIM have been trying to get out of the boat-building business. It is common knowledge that the senior executives of that board would rather not have such a development on their hands. They see themselves more as developers of fisheries than of boatyards, but that does not mean that the Minister can wash his hands completely of the industry. Last night I heard him blame over-manning as one of the reasons why the boatyards have been losing vast sums of money over recent years. I put it to him that the over-manning has long ago been got rid of. When the Coalition Government were in power far more people were employed in the three BIM boatyards than at present. The numbers have dropped quite dramatically over the past two years. The present run-down can only be described as an effort to close all three. When the number of people in employment in these yards will be fewer, there can be no other function than repairs. There has been a concerted effort to run those yards down, to delay and if possible divert orders from these yards. As Deputy Treacy said here tonight and Deputy Blaney mentioned last night, there has been a concerted effort not to replace any staff who retire or leave for other reasons.

The Minister's alternative suggestion that private enterprise can fill the gap is not confirmed by past performance. If things are as bad or as inefficient as the Minister has claimed, why has private enterprise not capitalised on that in the last couple of years? Last year loans were granted by BIM for eight boats over 65 feet in length to be built abroad. The Minister said that Irish boatyards can take over the work which is at present being done by BIM. Surely the Minister is aware that the maximum size steel-hulled boat which can be built in private boatyards at the moment is 45 feet. The demand is for much larger boats. We need an industry which can build steel-hulled boats in excess of 45 feet, preferably 90, 100, 110 feet. Has the Minister explored the obvious alternatives in this case? Why not modernise the BIM boatyards to allow them to build steel-hulled boats which obviously the fishermen are seeking nowadays? If BIM do not want to take the responsibility of these yards, why does not the Minister control these yards himself, use experts within his Department and give the yards a considerable amount of autonomy? From speaking to workers in these yards I believe that if they had this autonomy things would work considerably better and the yards would be far more viable.

Is it true that the Minister twice lied in the Dáil here today?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will withdraw the charge that the Minister lied.

Mr. Deasy

I am asking the Minister.

Mr. Lenihan

I did not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will withdraw the charge.

Mr. Deasy

I am not the one who made that allegation. I am asking if it is true.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The statement was made by the Deputy that the Minister lied.

Mr. Begley

Will the Minister swear that he did not meet Mr. Stafford?

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Deasy will withdraw the charge that the Minister lied and Deputy Begley will not mention within the House the names of private citizens outside the House. That is completely disorderly.

Mr. Begley

It might be disorderly but I am in order in doing it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Deasy will withdraw the charge.

Mr. Begley

The Minister did not meet him.

Mr. Lenihan

I do not answer people like the Deputies.

Mr. Deasy

I never said he lied.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the charge withdrawn?

Mr. Deasy

I am withdrawing it, although I never said it. We had a complete contradiction at Question Time. We were told one version by the Minister and one version in answer to Deputy Begley. The Minister told a deputation here in Leinster House this morning that he had a client to take over the Baltimore boatyard, whereas he told us at Question Time that he had not a client, that he had merely an inquiry. There seems to be a vast difference between the two statements.

The Minister by his refusal at Question Time today to detail the reasons for the huge losses in the Killybegs boatyard last year has confirmed our suspicions that this yard and the others were deliberately run down with a view to closure. He knows full well that the losses incurred last year were caused largely by the fact that there were two boats being built to a new design, something which never had been tried before at Killybegs. As a result there were excessive expenses, and, generally speaking, the huge loss can be attributed to this factor. I do not believe the Minister's statement that we are heading for another £1 million loss in 1979 in these boatyards. He is making that statement to suit himself and give himself another reason for ensuring that these boatyards do close down. It is all used as a smokescreen or a cloud, ably abetted by people like Deputy Fox, to make the public believe that the BIM yards are highly inefficient, which is not necessarily the case. The Minister should by now have got the message that the indignation at these proposed redundancies is not confined to the communities concerned. It permeates the fishing industry and the whole country. I advise the Minister to rethink.

We have had a very clear picture here in the last few days. We see Fianna Fáil Deputies from affected constituencies tripping over themselves to make public statements renouncing what the Minister has stated publicly, that is that the redundancies will take place. Deputy Blaney said last night that Senator McGowan told the people in Killybegs that there would be an inquiry into the matter and that he would have no hand, act or part in this closure. Deputy J. Walsh of Cork South-West is quoted in the newspapers as saying that if the boatyards do close down it will be over his dead body.

Mr. Begley

Where is he tonight?

Mr. Deasy

Or if redundancies take place for that matter. The Minister should have learned from experience, but obviously he feels that he will not incur the wrath of the electorate in Dublin West County where there is probably not one full-time fisherman anyway. But his colleagues in coastal constituencies might not be too thankful to him after the next general election.

One thing becomes patently clear in this whole shoddy episode. This is a conspiracy of some kind which embraces the higher echelons of BIM management, the Minister and certain Fianna Fáil entrepreneurs who are involved in the boat-building industry.

Mr. Begley

Hear, hear.

Mr. Deasy

The whole thing seems to be one large fiddle, the idea being that we will close down BIM boatyards, eliminate competition and let the profiteers and the friends of the party do the work instead. That might suit Fianna Fáil and the Minister, but for God's sake let us think of the workers in the three boatyards concerned in the most remote parts of Ireland where there is no alternative employment and the only option is to emigrate.

Mr. Blaney

Will the Minister give us any undertaking about a proper inquiry and no redundancies in the meantime?

Mr. Lenihan

I am in the course of making a very full inquiry into the whole matter. The question of redundancies and the work area is one for discussion with the management and was discussed this afternoon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The debate is concluded.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 44; Nil, 69.

Tá.

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cosgrave, Michael J.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• D'Arcy, Michael J.
• Deasy, Martin A.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Donnellan, John F.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Horgan, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lipper, Mick.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Ryan, John J.
• Spring, Dan.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Níl.

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Kit.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Andrews, Niall.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Cogan, Barry.
• Colley, George.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Sile.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Farrell, Joe.
• Filgate, Eddie.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South-Central).
• Fitzsimons, James N.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Fox, Christopher J.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Dennis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killeen, Tim.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Morley, Seán.
• Morley, P. J.
• Murphy, Ciarán P.
• O'Connor, Timothy C.
• O'Donoghue, Martin.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Smith, Michael.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael J.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies McMahon and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Briscoe.

Question declared lost.