Vol. 406 No. 8
2 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Marine if, as part of their commitment to the expansion of the Irish shipping fleet, the Government have any plans for the re-establishment of a publicly owned shipping company; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
3 Mr. G. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for the Marine whether, having regard to the recent Gulf war and the serious situation which might have arisen for the country in relation to its deep sea shipping, he has any plans to re-establish a national shipping line; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
(Limerick West): I propose to take Priority Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
I cannot agree with Deputy O'Sullivan's assertion that the recent Gulf war posed a serious threat to this country in relation to its deep sea shipping requirements. The carriage of bulk commodities to and from Ireland was unaffected and would in all likelihood have remained unaffected had the conflict taken longer to resolve.
The reasons this was the case are straightforward. There were numerous alternative sources of supply for all our main bulk imports and in fact only a very small proportion of total world trade was affected to any significant extent by the conflict. With the exception of oil prices which rose for a time in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait, the conflict had no discernible effect on Ireland's trade. Of course confidence was shaken and this delayed investment decisions.
In the circumstances, the re-establishment of a national deep sea shipping line is not an issue of immediate urgency.
Would the Minister agree that the decision by a previous Government to liquidate Irish Shipping Limited, which cost taxpayers £100 million, was an act of national sabotage leaving this country very vulnerable in the post-1992 era endeavouring to compete in a European market in which we will be the only complete island State? Have the Government now changed their position from that expressed in a motion in this House in 1985 to the effect that the former employees of Irish Shipping Limited should be paid adequate redundancy payments and that a strategic deep sea national shipping fleet should be established?
(Limerick West): Parts of the Deputy's supplementaries are irrelevant.
They are highly relevant.
(Limerick West): The package of shipping incentives initiated by this Government in 1987 included the Irish fleet having been expanded from 141,926 deadweight tonnes to 190,319 deadweight tonnes, representing an increase of more than 34 per cent. In addition, the Central Statistics Office figures show a small increase from 1 per cent to 2 per cent in export volumes for 1990 over 1989 for the period from January to November. I am satisfied that the questions which have been tabled by the Deputy is not of immediate urgency but, as has been proved, the matter is kept under constant consideration by the Government.
Would the Minister not agree that we were very lucky the Gulf war was short lived? The strategic importance of a deep sea fleet affecting this country could not be underlined sufficiently. In the event of the Gulf war escalating or being prolonged, our crude oil supplies could have been adversely affected as we do not have tankers capable of bringing that oil ashore. Is it not a fact that there was not one ferry ship available when the Gulf war was in progress as every vessel was taken up by other countries and we were left in a very vulnerable position? The question specifically asks whether the Minister for the Marine has changed his stance about providing a deep sea fleet. He is on record as having said he was looking for a deep sea fleet.
(Limerick West): There is no change in the stance but it is a question of priorities. I am sure the Deputy will agree that every Government must have priorities. I do not accept — and I have already stated in the reply — that the Gulf war would have had any detrimental effect with regard to our deep sea fishing fleet or trade between Ireland and many other countries. The current market demand for large deep sea bulk carriers is weak.
As the Deputy will be aware, overcapacity continues to be a problem and a significant proportion of the world's bulk fleet is either laid up or bound for the breakers yard. The slump in world shipping demands during the greater part of the last decade resulted in a major drop in new building investment. At the beginning of the eighties, the age profile of the world's fleet showed that the percentage of vessels under ten years old was 62 per cent; by 1989 less than 36 per cent were in this bracket. This trend reflects the low earnings of such vessels over the period, which were not sufficient to finance replacements costs and yield a reasonable return on capital. In the circumstances it would be imprudent, if not foolhardy, to commit the State to a major investment of taxpayers' money in a shipping sector which has such doubtful prospects but, nevertheless, it is being kept in mind on a continuous basis.
I am asking Deputy Gilmore and Deputy O'Sullivan, for brief supplementaries. Time is fast running out for dealing with priority questions today.
The Minister's reply is an absolute disgrace describing a cost to the State of £100 million liquidating Irish Shipping Limited as not being relevant to the issue before us. Can I ask him one very straight question since he quoted figures? What was the deadweight tonnage before the liquidation of Irish Shipping?
That is a very precise and separate question.
The Minister spoke about a 34 per cent increase. This is nonsense unless it is compared with the deadweight tonnage which was available before the liquidation of Irish Shipping.
(Limerick West): If the Deputy would put down a question to that effect I would be glad to answer it.
Surely the Minister has the reply there.
Would the Minister not agree in the event of a crisis affecting this island country, that we would have to go cap in hand to some other country to get a deep sea fishing fleet? That is the kernel of the question.
(Limerick West): I do not accept that.
