Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jul 1963

Vol. 204 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1963 —Second Stage.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands (Mr. Lenihan)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This short Bill amends the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, for the purpose of enabling repayments of amounts advanced to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara from the Central Fund to be waived where the Ministers for Finance and Lands are satisfied that such a course is desirable. Any amount waived must, however, be made good out of voted moneys and will therefore appear in the Fisheries Estimate for consideration by the House.

Since the establishment of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara by the 1952 Act advances totalling approximately £1,500,000 have been made under that Act. The bulk of those advances has been for the provision of boats and gear. Before 1952 similar advances were made to the Sea Fisheries Association and Deputies will recall that a sum of £186,000 in respect of a deficit appeared in the Fisheries Vote for 1961-62 and was described as follows by the Minister for Lands in the House on 20 July, 1961, columns 1503 and 1504:—

The object is to seek approval of the House for the writing off of a deficit in respect of advances made to the former Sea Fisheries Association for the provision of boats and gear. Advances totalling £408,500 were made to the Association for that purpose in the period of more than twenty years up to its dissolution in 1952. These advances were made from the Fisheries Vote and were repayable by annuities, the amount repaid each year being appropriated in aid of the Vote—as, for instance, at subhead G.4 for the current year. In contrast perhaps I should mention that advances to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara do not pass through the Vote but are made from the Central Fund and appear "below the line" in the Exchequer Account published regularly in Iris Oifigiúil.

Neither the Association nor its successor, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, has been able to recover all payments due for boats issued to hire-purchasers—some of whom, unfortunately, have utterly failed to meet their commitments. In the worst cases it has been necessary to resume possession of the boats and reissue them at a loss. In this way losses have been accumulating over the years and the annuities due to the Fisheries Vote have been falling into arrear. Had the liability to the Vote been reduced as each loss occurred, the total amount written off would be much smaller than the figure of £186,000 which is inflated by the inclusion of interest that has been accruing over the years. At long last, however, consideration of the matter has reached the stage at which this deficit can be formally wiped out. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara will, of course, continue to repay to the Vote advances made to the Association in so far as they correspond to the value placed on assets still remaining.

As the Minister then said, neither the Association nor the Board had been able to recover all payments for boats issued to hire-purchasers. In this Bill it is proposed to face up to that fact. The various incentives in the Government's Programme of Sea Fisheries Development published last year are, of course, aimed at remedying that situation but, before the introduction of those incentives, over £100,000, due by hire-purchasers and related to the advances made since 1952, had proved to be irrecoverable. The Board have, however, gone on repaying the advances received by them from the Central Fund. It is only reasonable that we should provide the necessary statutory machinery to enable us to make appropriate reductions in the amounts repayable by the Board and to specify the amounts waived in the Fisheries Vote. That, as I mentioned at the outset, is the purpose of this Bill which I recommend to the House.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We on this side of the House have no objection to this Bill but I feel that the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has presented this measure indicates that there is not the degree of prosperity in the fishing industry which the Parliamentary Secretary appears to indicate in his speeches outside this House.

It is regrettable that the standard of living which our fishermen enjoy today and which they have been enjoying over recent years does not enable them to pay back to the board the amounts they received by way of advances for boats or gear. I should like to hear a little more from the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to this matter. If our fishermen in the past have experienced a great degree of difficulty in paying for the boats or gear which have been given to them by the Board, how much greater will that difficulty be in the future when they are left entirely to the mercies of the fishmonger? Whatever difficulty there was in regard to buying boats and gear under the system which prevailed up to recently, there will be even more difficulty in the future, unless the Government are prepared to face the situation more courageously. They have not done so in the past and now that a problem has presented itself in relation to payment for boats and gear for fishermen, a new approach should be made by the Government in relation to this matter.

I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary on whose recommendation these sums will be waived. I should like also to know if before waiving any of those sums, the board must have decrees from, say, the district court for sums which are irrecoverable. In other words, if the fishermen are unable to meet their instalments in respect of the advances and interest due to the board, must the board obtain a court decree to satisfy themselves that no goods have been returned, that the money is not available and that they cannot possibly recover it?

I should also like the Parliamentary Secretary to enlighten us a little further in regard to Section 3 in respect of amounts, the repayment of which has been waived. Could he give us any details as to the amounts waived and for what purpose these amounts which will now be covered by this Bill were waived by the board? We all have some sympathy and understanding for fishermen who cannot meet their commitments to the board but an expression of pious sympathy is insufficient. However, when we have to express sympathy with the fishermen who cannot meet their liabilities in this matter, we must only come to the conclusion that the fishing industry in general has been rapidly declining in recent years and that the standard of living which our fishermen have does not enable them to pay their way.

A certain amount of attention is focussed on the Parliamentary Secretary as indeed on the Minister for Lands as to the circumstances which warrant the introduction of this measure. I certainly have no objection to the terms of this Bill but the fact that it is necessary is not very encouraging for the success of the Parliamentary Secretary's policy in relation to sea fisheries. May I say that the money advanced in the early days to the old Sea Fisheries Association was money well spent and devoted to a very good purpose. Although I have no objection to the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary could have enlightened the House to a much greater degree, more particularly in regard to Section 3.

Mr. Leneghan

It is very interesting to listen to Deputy O.J. Flanagan who comes from an area where, I am sure, a great many people depend on fishing. I do not think he has a clue as to what fishing means to an ordinary man on the coast. My attitude on this Bill is completely different from his. If we were to take the attitude Deputy O.J. Flanagan has taken, that because we are giving money to the fishermen, that shows they are on the brink of poverty, it would be a poor look-out for the farmers who are being spoonfed with millions of pounds every year. I cannot see how any Deputy can deprecate the fact that at last something is to be done for our fishermen.

Fishing in this country is only in its infancy. Up to recently, there was very little else to be seen around our coasts except curraghs, which are outmoded. It is only right that we should take some steps to ensure that fishing will expand instead of pursuing a policy of contraction as has been pursued for quite a number of years.

I am also of the opinion that, far from allowing Bord Iascaigh Mhara to continue its activities of purchasing fish as it has been doing for some years, the fisherman would much prefer to deal with the fishmonger and sell his fish in the ordinary way without any restriction. That appears to be the position, and I spent a good deal of my life in the fishing business so I should have some idea what I am talking about.

In regard to letting out boats, there should be some policy whereby these boats will be let out on the basis of a 20-years repayment period and that in the assessment of the repayment terms, proper insurance cover will be included in the charge. Most fishermen do not know the first thing about insurance. They have no bargaining power. Now a boat that is let out may be wrecked inside an hour. I suggest any boat let out should be insured by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the insurance premium should be included in the instalments payable by the fishermen. The premium should, of course, be as reasonable as possible.

There is a good deal of ambiguity in this Bill. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain further when he comes to reply. Far from curtailing the fishermen, he should go out of his way to expand facilities for them. We trip over ourselves in getting facilities for farmers and we ignore our fishermen. We spend millions on drainage and refuse to provide landing facilities for the fishermen around our coast.

Mr. Dillon

I suppose Deputy Leneghan is not really to be blamed for not knowing what this Bill is all about, seeing that it was only circulated today. There is not a penny in this Bill for fishermen. This is a Bill designed to write off deficiencies that have arisen over the past 20 years. Now Deputy O.J. Flanagan and I dealt with this problem for many years and what I should like to know is can we ever reach a stage at which this old backlog of deficiencies and defaults will be finally disposed of, once and for all?

Mr. Lenihan

That is the purpose of this measure.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to have that more fully explained. So far as I know, the income of the fishermen today ought to be ample to enable them to pay regularly the instalments due on their boats. If their income is not sufficient to enable them to do that, I want to know why. When I was Minister in charge of Fisheries, we bought all fish of a demersal character from the fishermen at a guaranteed price, subject to the reservation that if they went out and caught excess quantities of whiting, when they were acting in a pelagic way, we reserved the right to sell that whiting by tender. Otherwise, they had a guaranteed price for all their fish and a guaranteed market. Under that system, from their monthly cheque for their landings there was deducted a certain sum to meet their instalments: the balance represented their profit for distribution between the owner and the crew.

That system worked equitably and well. In a sense, it was analogous to PAYE, in that the fishermen had their instalments deducted from their monthly cheque. While they did not fall into arrears, they certainly never got themselves caught up in a burden of insufferable accumulated debt. By the development of that system, the development of ever-growing arrears was effectively arrested. We were all the time, of course, carrying an old balance of arrears which had arisen many years previously, and which is still being carried in the books. What figure are we now dealing with exactly? Is this the old carry-over from the Thirties and the war period? When we write off whatever sum it is intended to write off now, is that an end of it? Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us when did this accumulation arise? Does it relate to a period of ten or 20 years, or has it been growing all the time?

Mr. Lenihan

Growing all the time.

Mr. Dillon

Why did they not pay their instalments? Is it that they cannot make a living?

Mr. Lenihan

None of these arrears has arisen in recent years at all.

Mr. Dillon

My recollection is that we were carrying in the books an old accumulation of venerable arrears that had arisen during the Twenties and the Thirties, and during the war.

Mr. Lenihan

There are also arrears since 1952.

Mr. Dillon

Are the fishermen still running into arrears?

Mr. Lenihan

No, not so much now, but there are arrears in relation to trawlers purchased when the Deputy was in office.

Mr. Dillon

The German trawlers? Are these to be written off?

Mr. Lenihan

That is right.

Mr. Dillon

I hope Deputy Leneghan now will wake up to the fact that part of the purpose of this Bill is to pay for the losses on the three German trawlers. It is better to get all this out in the open now and finish with it, once and for all.

Mr. Lenihan

That is one of the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

This is finally writing off the three German trawlers.

Mr. Lenihan

Inter alia.

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to rub the Parliamentary Secretary's nose in the three German trawlers. He was not responsible. It was, I think, Deputy Bartley who had that distinction. It was but one of the follies of Fianna Fail, one of the many we have had to liquidate in this House. If this is an end to the German trawlers, that is all to the good. But we should not imply, as Deputy Leneghan seems to be deluded into believing, that this Bill represents a burden cast upon the Exchequer by the fishermen round our coasts. They had as much to do with the German trawlers as the people walking the streets of Dublin had; in fact, they had a great deal more to do with them for they saw more of the trawlers than the fishermen ever did. If this is a Bill designed to liquidate that transaction finally, all to the good.

Mr. Lenihan

There are some of the Deputy's "white elephants" included in it as well.

Mr. Dillon

Could the Parliamentary Secretary mention any of them? I should like to know what they are.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Tell us one.

Mr. Lenihan

I will leave it to the Deputies themselves.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

One single example now.

Mr. Dillon

Quite honestly, we know of none.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Parliamentary Secretary does not either.

Mr. Dillon

No, apparently not. Am I right in believing that the sum the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind is £186,000?

Mr. Lenihan

The Bill is flexible in order to leave it open to us to liquidate any liability, if we so desire.

Mr. Dillon

Naturally, and avoid this money collecting interest in the books. The present sum then we have in mind to be written off is approximately £186,000. If that finally liquidates this folly, well and good, and let us resolve now that these kinds of follies will not be perpetrated again.

I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary an assurance that we have reason now to believe that the boats on hire purchase to the fishermen will not fall into arrear again. If there is a tendency for the payments to fall into arrears currently, we should ask ourselves why. I am proud and happy to remember that when I last inquired into the average income of the fishermen who were purchasing boats, they were doing very well. I remember in particular an official who worked in a bank in Killybegs. He used to see the fishermen coming in and lodging their takings in the bank. He resigned from the bank, took a boat, and went out from the bank to the sea, because he had come to the conclusion that he could do better fishing with a boat in Killybegs than behind a counter in a bank. I think that was admirable. I am delighted with it. I am told he did extremely well.

I cannot feel any sympathy with men who are doing as well as I would wish them to do, not paying the instalments on their boats and gear. It seems to me improvident for men who are getting a good income not to pay for their boats and gear. While all of us who were associated with fisheries have a soft corner in our hearts for fishermen, it is not reasonable or right to appear to endorse the action of a man who is in enjoyment of a good income and does not meet his legitimate obligations. My experience of the Fisheries Branch and Bord Iascaigh Mhara is that no fisherman who meets with misfortune, loses his nets, or meets with any unforeseeable catastrophe, is ever pressed for that month's instalment or met in any unsympathetic way. There are special hazards associated with sea fishing which only experienced people can correctly evaluate.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to reassure us that while there is this flexible element in the powers enshrined in the Bill, he does not anticipate that there will be further losses of this kind, by way of default. Frankly, I have lost contact with the system whereby fish is now sold. My whole policy was based on the proposition that if the men went out and got the fish, they should have a guaranteed market on the pier when they brought the fish in. Their obligation was to go out and fish and bring in the best variety of fish they could, and when they landed it safely at the quay, it was our responsibility to attend to the marketing. That is what we did in the old days with the Sea Fisheries Association and Bord Iascaigh Mhara. So far as I am aware the system worked well.

There were periods in which the catches of our fishermen were not adequate to cater for the Irish Market. We reserved to Bord Iascaigh Mhara the exclusive right to import fish and, of course, we all knew that on these imports of fish substantial profits were made, but any profits made on the imports of fish were put into a fishery development fund. That fund was to be used subsequently for the benefit of the fishing industry as a whole.

I understand that whole system has been swept away and that there is a new system. Our system had the advantage that there were deductions from the fishermen's receipts in order to meet the payments due on boats and gear, and it meant that fishermen had unlimited credit to get gear or anything else they required. How are the payments made now? Who makes them? How are the fishermen selling the fish? What guarantee have they?

We set up a pilot fishmeal plant in Killybegs, and it was further developed by a German firm into a more substantial undertaking. That factory was primarily established for the purpose of promoting herring fishing. It is important that we should keep our minds fixed clearly on the policy underlying that decision. At the time the fishmeal factory was established, the herring fishing industry contained one element of risk and danger for the fisherman, and that was that if he brought in a large boat-load of herring, he might find there was no market at all for herring on the date he landed it. In those circumstances, we wanted to be able to say to the herring fisherman: "It does not matter about the state of the market. We will take all the herring you land at fishmeal price, but you will never be faced with the situation of having laboured to catch them and then having to throw them back into the sea."

A very strange thing happened in 1957 or 1958. Herring disappeared from the North Sea, whereupon herring became a scarce commodity. So far as I know, since that date, herring are a scarce commodity. Where we used to be plagued with a fairly frequently recurring surplus, now you can sell all the herring you can land. That is one of the mysteries of fishing. The trouble is that any week, or any month, herring may disappear from the coast of Ireland, and it would be difficult to find out where they had gone. No one seems to have any explanation for it. Of course, that has been a very welcome development from our point of view. The disappearance of herring from the North Sea, and the consequent European shortage, makes a fishmeal enterprise look almost fatuous, but it is only made to look fatuous in the eyes of those who do not understand anything about the problems of the fishing industry.

Of course we are glad we have not got to fall back on the fishmeal price. Of course we are glad that all the herring landed by Irish boats are saleable on the fresh, or salted, or cured, markets. Of course they are very desirable developments, but we would have been wrong to let our fishermen go out of the herring fishing business in the years when there were recurring gluts, by failing to provide any alternative outlet. I do not think it can be doubted that it was the knowledge that it was the policy of Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Government to make provision against recurring gluts that induced our fishermen boldly to equip themselves, and go out and fish for herring which are now saleable in season and out of season.

I want to reiterate most emphatically that I was responsible for initiating the fishmeal policy in this country, that in the same circumstances I would do precisely the same thing, that I am quite satisfied the decision to do that resulted in our fishermen staying in the herring business, and that we should be thanking Providence instead of lamenting that the fishmeal factory now finds itself in difficulty in getting supplies of raw material. When I set up that factory, that was the purpose for which I set it up: to create a situation in which it would find it extremely difficult to get raw material.

Mr. Leneghan

To get votes.

Mr. Dillon

We are now in the happy position that herring are being profitably sold on the normal market, but it is no harm to remember that at any time the old situation could reassert itself. As it is, we must keep our men in business by providing them with the same guaranteed outlet for surplus herring as the fishmeal factory was initially established to provide.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us a brief survey of the sales system and tell us how far he believes the new system of selling fish will operate to ensure that arrears on boats and gear will not accumulate again. I think our system of marketing provided a fair reassurance against a serious deterioration in the arrears position. I should like to be reassured that this new marketing procedure provides the same kind of guarantee.

Mr. Lenihan

I agree with Deputy Dillon in his emphasis on the necessity for having a basic floor price in respect of fish landings. He confined his remarks purely to herring landings and indeed, at the time he spoke of, there was a problem in regard to the disposal of herring landings. The situation has improved considerably in regard to the herring trade since then and the problem now is in regard to the disposal of fish of other varieties around our coast. For that reason, we have extended the basic guaranteed or floor price for fish of all varieties. We have, out of the Fishing Industry Development Fund, of which he spoke, provided that fishermen at any point around the coast can transport their fish free of charge to fishmeal outlets and are guaranteed thereby the basic fishmeal price. That applies to whiting and all other varieties——

Mr. Dillon

It is very doubtful that we should apply it to whiting. It is preventing people from going out to fish for high-class fish.

Mr. Lenihan

In regard to the general selling problem, I would say that there is no selling problem in regard to fish at the moment, nor has there been for the past 18 months. There is a growing home demand and a growing world demand for fish. We have services in the form of fishmeal and processing factories that will guarantee basic outlets for the fishermen. In addition to that, on the ordinary selling market, there are a large number of private firms, many more than formerly, now actively competing with one another for the fishermen's catch. I would say that this situation where you have a number of private buyers competing with one another for the fishermen's catch, and which is improving in that respect, is in fact benefiting the fishermen as it can only result in better prices for them. That has been the experience around the coast for the past 12 months. Last year, fish landings increased by ten per cent and the export of fish and fish products went up by 30 per cent over the previous year.

Deputy Leneghan referred to the question of proper facilities to enable fishermen to buy their boats. We initiated proposals which have now been in operation for the past 12 months which provided that the period of repayment for these boats was extended to 15 years. Fishermen are now charged a reduced interest rate of four per cent over 15 years and as well 25 per cent of the cost of a new boat is given by way of free grant at the initiation of the hire purchase deal. As an incentive to the fishermen to improve and increase his hire purchase repayments, we provided that, if he concludes these in ten years instead of the 15 years set out in the hire purchase agreement, he gets a bonus of ten per cent of the cost of the boat paid to him at the end of ten years, so that that bonus represents a target which he can aim at. If he effects the repayment within the ten years, he gets that substantial bonus which in the case of the small boat, say the 32-foot lobster boat, which costs £3,000, would be £300 into his pocket.

One of the problems referred to by Deputy Dillon was the question of fishermen's incomes. He referred to a particular case where a man left a bank and was able to make a substantial profit from fishing. I am aware of similar cases and we are attracting into our training scheme people who, in the ordinary course of events, would go into the more fashionable lines of business. Now they are coming into the fishing business instead. The problem we are facing is the discrepancy between the people who can make a very good living and the people who do not seem to make a good living from fishing. You have, say, ten per cent to 15 per cent making an excellent living and say 20 per cent to 30 per cent making a medium living and then you have the people at the bottom of the scale who, for one reason or another, are having difficulties.

Our problem is to raise the level of the people in the last category by way of advice, help and training, to a higher level of income. That is why we have initiated the advisory scheme analogous to the agricultural advisory scheme which has operated successfully for some years. We have introduced this scheme which involves training fishery officers who will be permanently located at various centres around the coast. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have been given a budget with the objective of bringing to the fishermen the most modern and up-to-date techniques, the best way of fishing with their boats, and in general, to bring them all the up-to-date information necessary for them to catch and land more fish and to sell to greater advantage. However, all of this discussion is really outside the terms of this measure before the House—and indeed I dealt with most of the matters which have been raised on the debate for the Fisheries Estimate——

Mr. Tully

The question which Deputy Dillon asked was if they are making so much money, how is it that the money has to be written off for the boats?

Mr. Lenihan

I am coming to the measure before the House which deals with a backlog of events in the past since the passing of the first Sea Fisheries Act in 1952. Some of these matters arise out of the three German trawlers to which Deputy Dillon referred, which were disposed of at a basement price and, in respect of the original purchase price, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are still repaying to the Exchequer by reason of the advances given to them by the Exchequer; and hire purchase boats which have been resumed over ten years by reason of default in payment and which were later disposed of by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara at a loss and in respect of which Bord Iascaigh Mhara are still making repayments.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

You do agree that the trawlers were sold at a foolish price?

Mr. Lenihan

I am talking about the payments on which fishermen defaulted over the past ten years. In their efforts over the years to get things moving An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have had to dispose of certain assets. For those assets, they are still making repayments to the Exchequer in respect of original advances. This Bill is purely confined to this simple question of providing that, where such advances have been made by the Exchequer, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara will now be relieved of repayment liability in respect of such advances——

Mr. Tully

It says here that on or after the passing of this Act——

Mr. Lenihan

Will the Deputy be patient? In addition to what I have stated, there is provision that Section 18 of the Principal Act—which made it mandatory on An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to make those repayments to the Exchequer in respect to any advances to it—be now amended by Section 2, to provide that in any case in the future where a similar situation may arise in relation to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara activities—and in any development activities to raise the industry and build it up, there may be losses in respect of works engaged in as a result of Exchequer advances— an order may be made by the Minister for Finance, on the recommendation of the Minister for Lands, providing for relief for the Board in respect of advances due. There is the safety, of course, that these orders will come before the House, because repayments of which the Board are relieved by reason of such orders must be displayed in the annual Fisheries Vote. The Oireachtas will be made fully aware of the amounts involved in relief to the Board by reason of the fact that an equivalent amount will be displayed in the annual Vote for Fisheries.

The Bill is designed to ensure that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara can carry out their development projects free from the encumbrance of any debt liability in respect of assets which they no longer possess. In the future, as in the past, there may be, in the course of the Board's development plans, losses in regard to assets which the Board may have to dispose of. In such case, it is only proper the Board should be relieved of Exchequer liability in respect of assets they no longer possess. As I have said, the relief must be fully displayed for the House in the annual Fisheries Vote.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Apart from the three useless trawlers, what assets have the Board disposed of recently?

Mr. Lenihan

From time to time, boats are resumed and are later disposed of.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Apart from the boats, and the German trawlers, have any other assets been disposed of?

Mr. Lenihan

No.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Therefore, the only assets disposed of have been boats and the three trawlers?

Mr. Lenihan

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.