Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 May 1965

Vol. 215 No. 15

Committee on Finance. - Vote 37—Fisheries.

I move :

That a sum not exceeding £558,400 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

The development of our sea and inland fisheries during 1964 along the lines set out in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion has been encouraging and shows an improvement on the results of the previous year. The following facts will help to give a picture of the expansion which has been achieved and which, I hope, will continue at an increasing tempo in the years ahead:—

the total value of landings of sea-fish and shellfish in 1964 showed an increase of £91,000 or 6.4 per cent as compared with 1963;

demersal landings, i.e. whiting, plaice, cod, etc., in terms of quantity and value, were the highest on record;

the value of shellfish landings in 1964 also reached a record total, being 19 per cent in excess of that for previous year;

the total value of all fish exports (including salmon, trout and eels) at £1,949,000 was over 13 per cent higher than the figure for 1963 which itself had constituted a record;

the estimated income from angling tourism increased by £1,385,000 during the year to the total of £3,145,000;

thus exports, both visible and invisible, arising from our fisheries were worth over £5,000,000 in 1964.

Following reorganisation in 1963 of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara that body is now playing a more vital role in the overall development programme, particularly through the media of its advisory and marketing services. Demonstrations of new techniques and gear have been given at various centres and the engagement of an expert Danish skipper on a full-time basis for this purpose has had very good results. The organisation of fish marketing on a regional basis by means of an effective link-up between the trade and the main supply ports in their area has achieved a more rational distribution of landings and this policy, backed by an intensive campaign for improved quality, handling and presentation, is steadily raising the level of home consumption. In other fields, particularly training of fishermen personnel, harbour development and research, the Fisheries Division are continuing to press ahead with the planned programme and in this connection, we received during the year the report of the American survey team making recommendations for the improvement of our sea fisheries.

Landings of sea-fish, excluding shellfish which are recorded partly by weight and partly by numbers, amounted in 1964 to 488,000 cwt. representing a rise of over 88,000 cwt. on the figure for 1963. While the largest single increase was in sprats, which is a low-priced species, there was an appreciable expansion in landings of most of the demersal varieties.

According to the Whips, I understood this Estimate was ordered for 1.30. I do not wish to be discourteous to the Minister.

My clear understanding was that it was ordered for 1 o'clock.

It is all right now. All is saved. I am told there was a misunderstanding between the Whips or, to be more correct, by the Acting Whip.

The total value of the landings, including shellfish, came to £1,505,000 made up of £877,000 for demersal fish (plaice, whiting, cod et cetera), £208,000 for pelagic fish (herrings, mackerel etc.) and £420,000 for shellfish.

The ten species, which contributed most to fishermen's earnings were plaice, whiting, lobsters, herrings, cod, ray/skate, haddock, Dublin Bay prawns, crawfish and soles in that order. The most significant increase was in the value of the shellfish catch which was over £66,000 in excess of that for 1963. This increase was reflected in the appreciable expansion of shellfish exports during the year, the value being £590,000 as compared with £476,000 in the previous year.

While the figures of landings for 1964 were generally satisfactory I must, I confess, express disappointment with the herring catch particularly that from the Dunmore East fishery. When in 1962 the Government decision was taken to construct a major fishery harbour at Dunmore East landings of herring at the port were of the order of 250,000 cwt. for the season. Unfortunately owing to a dispute which has arisen the number of boats working into Dunmore has dropped from approximately 100 to 25 in 1964-65 when landings amounted to about 60,000 cwt. This decrease in the catch is reducing the status of Dunmore East as a major herring port and results in a decline of interest by foreign buyers.

Promotional activities, aimed at achieving a greater home consumption of fish, were intensified during the year. The National Fish Cookery Competition, sponsored by the Fishing Industry Development Committee, for secondary and vocational school students increased in popularity and attracted some 20,000 competitors. A similar competition confined to members of the Irish Countrywomen's Association was again held in 1964 with expanding interest being shown at all stages. In addition, an intensive programme of public fish cookery demonstrations at various centres throughout the country was undertaken in co-operation with fish processors, wholesalers, retailers, hotels and institutions. Further promotional activities included fish exhibitions and fish-weeks in Dublin and main provincial centres. To supplement all these undertakings television, radio and newspaper advertising was availed of throughout the year and specially designed display material was placed at the disposal of the trade in order to carry the national advertising theme to the point of sale.

Side by side with the expansion of the home market, the promotion of export sales of fish and fishery products is being encouraged and assisted and the results of this policy in 1964, when the total value of all fish exports (including salmon, trout and eels) was almost £2,000,000, have been encouraging.

There is a further increase to £290,000 in the grant-in-aid to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara—£211,000 for current operations and £79,000 for capital purposes. The main capital items are as usual grants of 25 per cent of the cost of new boats, new engines and new winches. Repayable advances from the Central Fund of up to £281,000 have also been authorised, chiefly for financing the purchase of boats and gear. Nineteen new boats ranging from 26 to 56 feet in length were issued by the Board to hire purchasers during 1964. The Board also helped to finance the purchase of three second hand boats from abroad of 63', 65' and 85'.

The Board are continuing production in their factories at Killybegs and Galway in co-operation with members of the fish trade. As Deputies will be aware it has been necessary to permit the import of fish from externally registered boats in order to maintain production when home landings are not available. These landings are to supplement not to supplant local catches and as it is a condition of any licence granted that suitable home landings are to be given priority over imported fish, sales of the Irish fishermen's catches are not in any way affected.

The object of granting these licences is to ensure that the factories can continue to retain their staffs in employment so that when our own fishermen land large catches the factories will be able to handle them. I am convinced that for the more rapid development of the sea-fishing industry on rational lines, the processing sector will have to occupy a front line position in our national economy. As a corollary, existing processing factories and others that may be established will have to be assured of regular and adequate supplies for economic working.

I am hoping to promote contractual arrangements between Irish fishermen and factories to ensure that at least basic factory needs are met. I have explicit faith that Irish fishermen will in time and with improved State aid and encouragement be well capable of playing their full part in this aspect of the industry. I think that the majority of Irish fishermen now realise that these imports do not constitute a threat to their livelihood but in fact will in the long term be to their advantage.

The reorganised Board continued during the past year to extend their development functions, embracing, inter alia, fleet maintenance scheme, expansion of markets at home and abroad, encouragement of increased fish processing and the imparting of general advice to fishermen with particular reference to the employment of new fishing techniques. Good progress was made in 1964 in the introduction of improved fishing methods and in the promotion of co-operation among fishermen.

I must now refer to a new Subhead D.2 showing a provision of £217,600 for repayment to the Central Fund of advances made under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952 for the provision of boats and gear where repayment by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara has been waived under the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1963.

Deputies may recall that in 1961-62 a similar write off was necessary in the case of the Board's predecessor, the former Sea Fisheries Association. Advances of the order of £2 million were made to the Board between 24th April, 1952 and 31st March last for the provision of boats and gear. Neither the Association nor the Board has been able to recover all payments due for boats issued to hire purchasers—some of whom unfortunately have failed to meet their commitments. In the worst cases it has been necessary to resume possession of the boats and re-issue them or sell them at a loss. Also provided for are capital losses of £68,370 incurred on the sale of the three offshore fishing vessels in 1960. While these losses have been accumulating over the years the Board have continued to remit the annuities as they fell due. Had the liability to the Exchequer been reduced as each loss occurred, the total amount to be written off would be much smaller than the figure of £217,600 which is inflated by the inclusion of interest of more than £35,000 which has been accruing over the years.

While it is inevitable that such losses will continue to some degree, I hope that the improved hire purchase facilities by way of grants and subsidised interest rate together with the fleet maintenance and advisory services schemes operated by the Board will help to keep losses to a minimum.

One of the major aims of fishery policy is the provision of trained personnel at all levels. The scheme for the training of boys as fishermen is making steady progress. During 1964 54 boys were admitted to training and 50 boys have now completed residential shore courses at the Naval Base, Haulbowline and Cobh vocational schools. I would like to take the opportunity to convey my appreciation to all who have contributed to the success of these shore courses and also to the skippers who have provided facilities for the practical training of boys on their boats. Further applications from boys of not less than 16 years of age were invited recently and interviews at convenient centres will be held in due course.

Under the scheme for training experienced fishermen as skippers 11 fishermen qualified in 1964 for certificates of competency under the Merchant Shipping Acts bringing to 51 the total number who have obtained such certificates since the introduction of the scheme in 1958. A further nine fishermen are at present attending a course at Galway under the scheme. Three experienced fishing skippers also completed a special course of eight weeks' instruction in navigation at the Irish Nautical College, Dún Laoghaire. In the long term the training scheme will provide a nucleus of skilled men who will be able to hold their own with fishermen anywhere in the world.

Work is progressing satisfactorily on the development of major fishery harbours at Killybegs, Castletownbere and Dunmore East; final decisions have yet to be reached on revised proposals for Howth and Galway. Legislation is being drafted to confer powers for the compulsory acquisition of property required for these projects and to provide for the control and management of the major fishery harbours when completed. Improvement schemes to be partly financed by State grants were approved during the past year for the harbours at Kilmore Quay, County Wexford, Cahirciveen and Renard Point, County Kerry, as well as for some smaller landing places around our coast. Proposals for other landing places are being considered.

Provision is made in the Estimate for extended scientific investigation of the species of fish in our waters with particular reference to shellfish. Continued collaboration between the scientific team of the Fisheries Division and their counterparts in other countries is also proposed. Recommendations by the American survey team in this field are particularly relevant. The work is going ahead on the construction of a second research vessel which is expected to be commissioned during the year. An alternative site is being sought for the fisheries research station at Galway; final steps in this matter are being pressed ahead and arrangements for the design of the building are in hands.

Arising from the recent extension of the exclusive fishery limits under the Maritime Jurisdiction (Amendment) Act, 1964, more scope will be provided for the operations of Irish fishermen. While in accordance with international agreement certain concessions are being granted to fishermen from countries which have habitually fished our waters, foreign vessels will only be allowed to fish in the belt between three and six miles to the end of 1965 in areas where the limits are measured from the coastline, and to the end of 1966 elsewhere. In the belt between six and twelve miles only fishermen from countries, the fishing vessels of which have habitually fished in that area in the ten year period before the end of 1962, will be permitted to fish.

On the inland side I am glad to report that the high salmon catches of the previous two years were exceeded in 1964. The total catch of salmon by all fishing methods was 3,012,664 lbs. in 1964 compared with 2,836,640 lbs. in 1963 which in itself was a record; thus for three successive years a high catch of salmon had been maintained due to very good runs of grilse. In general the runs of spring fish were better than in the previous year but the small summer fish which formed the mainstay of the salmon runs in May and early June and the grilse run later in the year were really responsible for the increase. Grilse continued to run up to October in many areas.

Although the catch was higher in 1964 the quantity of salmon exported was slightly lower than in 1963, that is 22,900 cwts. as compared with 23,700 cwts. in 1963. The prices obtained, however, were somewhat higher with the result that the value of exports in 1964 reached the record figure of £933,500. The 1963 exports were valued at £857,000. There were two factors which helped to maintain the high prices in 1964 that is the storing of large quantities of grilse taken late in the season for export at the beginning of the succeeding year and the smoking of suitable fish for export. In accordance with long established practice officers of Fisheries Division paid visits to some of the main marketing centres for salmon in Great Britain to keep a check on the standards of Irish salmon as exported.

Conditions for angling were reasonably good throughout most of the country last year and there were good escapements of fish into fresh waters. The spawning season was reported to be exceedingly good in most districts. A sharp rise in the number of rod licences issued took place in 1964 when a total of 11,600 licences were issued as compared with 9,700 in 1963 and just over 9,000 in 1962. The weight of salmon taken by rod and line was 390,000 lbs. in 1964, an increase of 48,500 lbs. over 1963.

These successful runs of salmon are in a big measure a tribute to the work of Boards of Conservators. I may refer in support of this statement to the problem of keeping poachers under control. The sale of salmon is a fairly lucrative trade and many people are tempted to take this fish illegally and dispose of it by irregular methods. The law requires that anyone taking salmon should have a licence and there are heavy penalties for infringements, including loss of gear and even of boats and vehicles used in the illegal fishing. The outlets for salmon are likewise strictly supervised and anyone possessing a salmon by way of trade is liable to be required to account for it. Even though the law against taking or having salmon illegally is quite stringent, the staffs of Boards are in many cases overtaxed in their efforts at protection. These Boards have to contend also with other forces which threaten the stocks such as dangers from pollution by sewage, peat silt and discharges from industrial concerns and also from agricultural by-products.

As well as the protection of stocks, Boards are expected to take in hand projects of development by river improvement measures, such as by increasing and improving spawning areas, providing easier access for fish to upper waters and other works beneficial to the stocks. Most of these are relatively small jobs which the Boards' staffs, sometimes in conjunction with angling associations, can tackle by themselves under suitable direction. My Department is able to give adequate grants towards the cost in each case. In addition to these lesser projects, there are others of a more elaborate nature which require expert planning and oversight; they usually are in the nature of overcoming formidable barriers in rivers to fish movements which prevent them ascending to higher waters where they would provide more sport for anglers and at the same time have access to additional spawning areas. The engineers of my Department give every assistance in the planning and execution of schemes like this. Details of other improvement works undertaken by the bodies concerned may be found in the report of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and of the Electricity Supply Board.

The State grant to the Salmon Conservancy Fund has been raised to £33,000 partly because the expenses of boards of conservators are unavoidably rising and partly in view of an intended scheme for reorganisation of key protection staffs of boards. It will mean increased pay and pensionability for the men concerned. The framework of the legislation necessary towards this end is at present being prepared. One of the major projects financed out of the Fund was the salmon hatchery and rearing station at Cong, County Mayo which was completed last year and was officially opened in January of this year. It went into operation on a limited scale and the output of ova during the 1964-65 spawning season was 210,000 ova. The capacity is 1,600,000 ova and 270,000 under-year-lings and it is hoped to have it in full production during next season.

I referred before to large-scale river improvement projects. One of these was the fish passes at Ennistymon on the River Inagh which had been completed in 1963. They were tested by means of an electronic fish counter and it was found that considerable numbers of salmon went upstream to spawn. Positive evidence of spawning was found in the upper reaches of the river. Investigations on other rivers have been undertaken and it is hoped that other major projects in this line may be put in hand shortly.

Among the investigations in hands by the professional staff of the Fisheries Division is the application of electricity to fishery management and development. An experimental station has been set up at Glenties salmon hatchery, County Donegal where various aspects of the practical application of electricity to fishery investigations, management and exploitation are being studied.

Outbreaks of disease in different areas were investigated during the past year; that at Waterville, County Kerry has given rise to the greatest concern. In the Cummeragh River at Waterville, heavy mortality was experienced in salmon and sea trout and special efforts were put in train to ascertain the nature of the disease. Specimens of diseased fish were sent for bacteriological examination to the Veterinary College in Dublin where cultures were produced in an attempt to isolate and identify the organisms and, at the same time, specialists abroad were supplied with specimens and cultures in an all out attempt to solve the problem. So far the findings have been negative.

Under the ordinary programme of investigation work was carried out in a wide variety of fields of activity all of which are of significant practical importance and as usual the staff of the Department continued to read scales and identify fish sent for identification.

Rehabilitation of the salmon stocks of the River Lee continued to engage attention. The programme of work comprises the following main heads:

(i) assisting adult fish to move upstream past the hydro-electric dams to the upper spawning grounds and procuring the escapement of smolts downstream,

(ii) reduction of predators so as to secure the maximum survival of smolts.

The assistance of university students has been enlisted by the award of bursaries for this and other projects.

Investigations designed to encourage development of eel fishing and improved methods of fishing are also continuing. Exports of eels during 1964 amounted to 6,512 cwt. valued at £91,776 compared with 3,125 cwt. valued at £45,313 in 1963.

The decision of the Government last year to increase its investment in the development of angling waters in the interest of home and visiting anglers has, I am glad to say, been fully justified. Estimated income from angling tourism rose to over £3 million in 1964 as compared with £1,760,000 in 1963, but as part of this increase is accounted for by the fact that estimated expenditure per head is now being calculated on a revised basis a more realistic basis of comparison is the increase in the number of visiting anglers, which at 89,612 showed a rise of almost 20 per cent over the 1963 figure of 74,924.

These figures underline the importance of the angling development work being carried out by the Inland Fisheries Trust, Bord Fáilte and the various local development groups. I am confident that there is still plenty of scope for further development and I would appeal for a continuance and extension of the spirit of co-operation which has contributed so largely to the success achieved to date.

The State contribution to the Salmon Research Trust has been raised to a maximum of £2,000 in the present year representing roughly one-third of the running costs of that body. The balance is, as Deputies are doubtless aware, paid by Arthur Guinness Son & Co. Ltd., which also bears a large share of the capital cost of installations, equipment, etc. at the research centre at Newport, County Mayo. I feel that it is only right that I should pay public tribute to the generous manner in which the company has contributed in the field of fishery research.

Exports of rainbow trout continued to rise and in 1964 reached 3,092 cwt. valued at £60,921 as against 1,362 cwt. valued at £25,739 in 1963. Three commercial scale fish farms are now in operation in addition to five smaller units.

The provision for compensation under The Fisheries Act, 1939 is largely a tidying up one and is in respect of interest and costs in a small number of cases now in the process of final clearance.

A research fellowship is being offered for award in connection with a project of research into the water purity conditions in certain rivers and streams with particular reference to their fishery productivity. Irish rivers are, to a great extent, free from the damaging effects of industrialisation. However, to satisfy the requirements of the developing economy, the use of Irish water resources for industrial and domestic purposes is increasing. The need, therefore, of some fundamental research into the effects of pollution has been recognised in order to provide information on which to base future policy for dealing with the problem.

Provision is being made again this year for three studentships in fishery science relating to sea and inland fishery matters, valued at £400 per annum each, which will be offered for competition to University graduates. The studentship projects will be carried out in co-operation with the university authorities.

In addition, 14 bursaries in fishery science, at a total value of approximately £1,650, are being offered by the Department, Electricity Supply Board, Foyle Fisheries Commission and the Salmon Research Trust, for award to undergraduates.

As already mentioned the drafting of a Bill to deal with the Major Fishery Harbours Development Scheme is in hands and I hope that it will be possible to introduce it soon.

Proposals for a new Fisheries (Amendment) Bill are also under consideration in my Department at present. This Bill will provide for a number of miscellaneous amendments to the existing fisheries law, including improved conditions for key staff of boards of conservators, superannuation scheme etc.

To sum up, I feel that Deputies will agree that satisfactory progress has been made during the past year in the development of our sea and inland fisheries. I trust that with the full co-operation of all sectors of the industry this progress will continue at an increasing tempo during the coming years. Accordingly, I confidently recommend this Fisheries Estimate to the House.

This is the first time the present Minister had an opportunity of introducing this Estimate and I should like to wish him every success in the Fisheries Section. We should like to know if he proposes to continue the procedure whereby his predecessors in charge of Fisheries allocated that particular section to their Parliamentary Secretaries. I think Deputies and the fishing industry generally would like to know that. We appreciate that the Minister will personally remain responsible but would like to know whether it is his Parliamentary Secretary we should contact on matters related to the fishing industry. Perhaps when he replies to the debate, he will give some information on this matter.

The fishery industry is the second largest industry we have. It comes after agriculture and, in my opinion, before tourism. It is unfortunate that the House generally does not display the interest in it that is displayed in other industries. One finds that only Deputies who reside in maritime counties and have some connection with the industry take part in the debate. We should like to see Deputies representing the consumers and the distributive branch of the industry taking some interest in the Estimate and making suggestions which I am sure would be welcomed by the Minister and his Department.

The Minister has referred to the extension of our fishery limits. I am inclined to be sceptical about the advantages of the limited territorial gains we have made. We have not gone far enough. We are aware that our territorial waters remain the same at the three mile limit but our fishery limits have been extended, as the Minister pointed out; but in the case of the west of Ireland our limit should be from a base line drawn from headland to headland and not from the headlands or points from which these base lines are now drawn. I know it is not the Minister's function to deal with these matters : it is rather the function of the Department of External Affairs as they handled the matter at the Geneva and London conferences. I think we made a mistake and that we should have done as some other countries did, that is, insist on our own fishery limits and say that we would protect them. Countries who did that got away with it and gained considerably by so doing.

The Icelandic Government, as we know, has extended Iceland's fishery limits and these are now internationally recognised. I should like to see the independent attitude of Iceland taken up by our Government. Genetics and economics compel us to go further to sea at the moment, to go right out to the Atlantic shelf. As we know, on the west coast we cannot go more than 14 or 15 miles before we meet the Atlantic shelf, which is absolutely unfishable. I think we should have brought in all fishing waters right up to that shelf and prevent them being overfished by the foreigners with whom we must now share the fishing grounds out there.

Recommendation No. 3 of the American survey team which visited this country made such a suggestion and said that positive steps should be taken to stimulate fishing on off-shore banks of the Irish continental shelf by Irish fishing vessels. That, of course, refers to the Atlantic shelf but we must now share those waters with foreign Governments. I think that is a pity.

This Estimate is for a sum of £558,400. Down through the years, we have made a serious mistake in associating our fisheries with our congested districts. In the old days before the establishment of the State when fisheries were first organised, it was done by the old Congested Districts Board to cater for the poorer counties off the coasts of which we have the best fishing grounds. I refer particularly to Counties Donegal. Mayo, Galway, Kerry. There are good fishing grounds off the coasts of Cork, Waterford and possibly the east coast, which have been completely fished out, but, there is still a lot of virgin ground off the west coast and it is a tragedy that we are still inclined to associate the ideals and ideas of the old Congested Districts Board with our fisheries and are inclined to look upon any grants in aid which we give to fishermen as social amenities rather than for the development of a serious industry.

I always thought it a pity that Bord Iascaigh Mhara were not given the same power as, say, the Irish Sugar Company and the ESB have. If a quasi-State body such as Bord na Móna or the ESB were set up to deal with our fisheries, we would be much better off. When we did set up Irish Sea Fisheries and its successor Bord Iascaigh Mhara, we confined the financial aid which we gave them to very limited sums, but if such an independent body were set up and permitted to float a Government-guaranteed loan—because it is only by means of money that we are ever going to develop fisheries—we could make some progress towards building up this industry to what it should be.

It is a strange thing that in dealing with our fisheries the old Congested Districts Board, the British Government and the Government of the State in its earlier years confined their activities entirely to pelagic fish. Demersal fish were never regarded as a commercial proposition at all until 25 to 30 years ago. Shellfish and pelagic fish were the only fish considered as being of any worthwhile commercial value. Then we discovered and we now know that there is greater financial gain to be procured from demersal fish than there was in the days of the Congested Districts Board and the Minister's predecessors and all Governments within the past 20 years have done their best to improve demersal fishing and the methods of demersal fishing on our coastline, but unfortunately, at the same time, as the Minister has pointed out, our pelagic fishing has decreased. He points out that last year there was a considerable decrease in pelagic fish, particularly herrings. I do not see any mention of mackerel at all in the Minister's speech but herrings certainly decreased and particularly on the south coast and off Dunmore, and the Minister gave reasons for it.

I should like to inform the Minister that no later than three days ago I saw a telegram from Tory Island to say the coastline off Donegal is teeming with prime matje herrings, that there are no boats from which to catch them and no market for them. As the Minister and his advisers know matje herring are rich in oil and require very careful handling, indeed, and up to date methods would require ice instead of the traditional method of salt. There is no ice in the vicinity of the north coast of Donegal and gear is not made available to the fishermen— special gear is required for matje herring—and no effort is made to procure a market, despite the fact that there is a scarcity of herrings throughout Europe at the moment. It is a pity that some effort has not been made to improve pelagic fishing just as we are endeavouring to improve demersal fishing.

We must proceed to procure large boats to go right out to the limits of the Atlantic shelf to fish. I know it will be said that I was very much against the procurement by the Minister's predecessor of three large German trawlers for our fishing industry away back in the early fifties. I definitely was. I thought they were premature at that stage. Now that we have the trained personnel, now that we have a fishing fleet manned by Irish fishermen, we must go in for and build bigger boats of anything up to 100 and 110 feet. It was only quite recently that we had a seizure in Killybegs and saw some of the Spanish fishing trawlers landed there. Certainly, we have no boats or gear on our coast to touch what the Spaniards have for the purpose of deep-sea fishing.

All this will require money. It is for that reason that the Minister and the Government should seriously consider the setting-up of an independent body to man our fisheries, to float a loan to ensure that once and for all money will not be any object in the advancement of this most important industry.

The Minister referred to the improvement of harbours. That is a very good thing because harbours are an essential amenity to all fishermen. If we have not got harbours ideally located, our fishing fleets run the risk of loss at sea. Harbours must be safe. They must not be dispersed at too great distances from each other. When boats of our fleet find it necessary to seek the haven of a harbour they should have them readily available.

I am glad, indeed, to hear the Minister say that it is proposed to develop the harbours he has mentioned. There are a number of smaller harbours. Deputies from the east, south and possibly the west, will pardon me if I omit to refer to the harbours in their areas and refer to some in Donegal. Deputy Burke and other Deputies when they come to speak on this Estimate will refer to harbours in their own localities. In Donegal, there is a demand for the improvement of smaller harbours. The Minister and the Government are doing excellent work in Killybegs but it is a long distance from Killybegs to Lough Swilly and in between, God help any fishing fleet that is caught in a northwestern or north gale on that coast.

Something must be done to improve the smaller harbours and to give a haven of rest and shelter to fishing fleets when at sea. I particularly refer to Burtonport, Kincasslagh and, in a lesser way, Bunbeg. At Burtonport, a survey has recently been carried out for the purpose of finding out the composition of the bottom of the channel and harbour. The survey is completed and, I assume, under consideration by the Department but I would appeal to the Minister to endeavour to expedite through his own Department or the Office of Public Works some immediate repairs at Burtonport where there are nine seine net fishing boats all the year round engaged in seine net fishing and demersal fishing and during a certain part of the year in pelagic fishing. Unfortunately, for threequarters of the time, these boats are beached high and dry and cannot come alongside. By the extension of the existing pier and deepening and dredging of the harbour, these boats could find afloat berths at all stages of the tide. At Kincasslagh, there is an excellent harbour where boats remain afloat during all stages of the tide and once the wind backs out north or north-west, these must clear out of the harbour. A breakwater is very essential there. These things cannot be done overnight but it would be no harm if, in long-term policy, these matters were seriously considered by the Government. Even now if only plans were laid for the carrying out of these projects at some future date, good work would be done.

Bunbeg has a natural harbour which would require some deepening and, if possible, it should be seen to. We have on our coast one of the finest fishing harbours in Ireland at Downings. Unfortunately, it is no longer a fishing harbour and the tradition of fishing has completely gone from the locality. I wonder if the Minister could do something to revive the fishing industry there because these fishermen are the nearest base to the Tory Island fishing grounds. If something could be done to build up that marvellous tradition which existed up to the last world war, it would be a very good thing indeed.

The Minister's predecessor appointed a number of directors to Bord Iascaigh Mhara but unfortunately the fishermen are not represented on that Board. That is something the Minister should remedy and I would appeal to him to consult the various fishermen's organisations when he comes to reappoint the directors and ensure that the fishermen are properly represented on the directorate. This is the first time, not only on this board but also on its predecessor, the Irish Sea Fisheries Association, that the fishermen's organisations have not had representation. I would appeal to the Minister to remedy that fault, or oversight, as it may be, in the near future.

The Minister has given us the figure for the landings of fish in this State during the past twelve months, and the total landings amount to £1,505,000, in round figures £1,500,000. Yesterday I had a question down to the Minister in reply to which he informed me that the fish imports into the State for the year ended 28th February amounted to £1,051,000. There is only £500,000 difference involved between the landings of our own fleet and the imports of fish into the State. That is a very serious matter.

We have set up fishmeal plant to process the surplus fish landed. We process it into fishmeal for animal consumption and at the same time we import £1,051,000 worth of fish for human consumption. If there is a surplus of fish landed in the State and we know there is a lacuna period some time during the year at which time there is a scarcity of landings, surely by means of deep freeze holding plants, it should be possible to use the surplus fish to provide for the lacuna period and thus obviate the importation of £1 million worth of fish during the year.

This fishmeal plant business is being overdone. It has become expedient to send fish to the fishmeal factory that we could send to a deep freeze holding station so that it could be used at a later stage when there is a scarcity of fish. There is no use in our saying that our fishery industry is improving when there is this large importation of fish for the year ended 28th February, 1965, when in the year 1962 we imported only £596,000 — call it £600,000—worth of fish. We imported £400,000 worth of fish more in 1965 than we imported in 1962, and that is no matter for complacency. It is a matter which deserves the serious thought of all interested in our fishing industry. I recommend to the Minister that he should consider very carefully the reasons for this large increase in fish imports while, at the same time, we are building in this State fishmeal factories for the processing of our surplus fish.

We have got away from the original idea in the establishment of these fishmeal factories. I understood that the reason fishmeal factories were first set up here was in order to process the offal, the bone, and possibly whatever surplus fish we could not hold in cold storage during a period of abundance. Now we appear to be catching fish for the pure purpose of processing it into fishmeal and, what is more, we are catching immature fish and doing considerable damage to our fishery stocks of the future.

The Minister told us that the fish landings amounted to so many cwts. during the year and that the value of the landings amounted to £1,500,000, but he did not break down that figure to tell us what was the value of fish landings here by foreign vessels fishing for our fishmeal plants. If that is broken down and added to our imports, it will be found that the actual value of the landings by native boats is not as high as the Minister states and would possibly only equate the amount of fish imported plus the amount caught by foreign vessels. The Minister should examine that matter.

There are on our coasts a number of boatyards and some two years ago Bord Iascaigh Mhara set up a maintenance gang—I will use that description for want of a better word—who were mobile and who moved from port to port. These men surveyed and examined periodically the boats of the board and the fishing vessels of private individuals. At the same time when urgent repairs were required to be carried out, this mobile gang did the job on the spot, charged for the labour and for the spare parts. This was an excellent scheme. The personnel of this gang were recruited from garages and other such concerns.

I understand it is proposed by the board to abolish this maintenance gang and that will be very serious indeed because if a boat breaks down in Schull or any of the other ports where there is no boatyard, it will be necessary to have that boat towed to a boatyard and the repairs carried out there. That will be to the disadvantage of the boat owner, and I would appeal to the Minister to impress on the board the absolute necessity of retaining this maintenance gang to carry out the surveys and urgent repairs to all boats fishing from our ports. They were known as a mobile team of fitters and they did a considerable amount of work.

This maintenance gang should be maintained at all costs—if necessary, subsidised—so that they will be on the spot to ensure that our boats are seaworthy. After all, the bulk of our fishing fleet is still the property of Bord Iascaigh Mhara and it should be their concern to ensure the boats are kept seaworthy and capable of going to sea at all times. It would be a tragedy and a retrograde step to abolish the maintenance mobile unit and that should not be allowed to happen.

Bord Iascaigh Mhara have now decided to divest themselves of some of the functions for which they were established. They are no longer concerned with the marketing of fish. They have established co-operative societies in various ports. There is also the National Fishermen's Co-operative here in Dublin. That is duplication and I think it is a bad thing. I am all in favour of co-operative societies but we should have just the one society for the entire State. If we are handing over to these the functions of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara then we should hand them over completely. All the fishermen are actually being asked to do is market the fish themselves. The Board are retaining unto themselves what might be described as the profit-making branch of their activities. If the Board are denuding themselves of the function of selling fish, then they should also hand over the factories to the co-operative societies. I should like to know what is happening in these factories. I refer now to the one at Killybegs and the one at Galway. I know the Board buy and process fish in these factories but I should like to know to whom do they sell the fish that they process. I should like to know what happens to any profits made on the processing and sale of fish. I should like to know whether anybody receives any commission on the sale of this fish. I should like to know why these factories were not handed over to the co-operative societies so that they could process the fish, make any profit to be made in processing, and thereby ensure they are not at the mercy of the fishmonger. The Minister should look into this and ensure that, if co-operatives are set up, they get the advantages as well as the disadvantages of taking over from the Board what the Board had originally as their functions.

On the question of distribution, I understand that the co-operative societies, other than the NFC, have nothing whatever to do with distribution. The societies merely sell their fish at the various ports at which they are landed. What is being done at the moment about the distribution of fish throughout the State? At the Spring Show this year Bord Iascaigh Mhara had a magnificent display. It was really excellent. What a pity that there are not similar displays throughout the length and breadth of the country.

For many years now I have been advocating the setting up of a frozen slab in each village and town in the State to preserve fish. I remember advocating years ago the purchase of deep freeze vans for distribution purposes. In the early days of the first inter-Party Government, we insisted on Bord Iascaigh Mhara, or else the Irish Sea Fisheries Association, buying frigidaire vans. For some reason the vans were left lying in their yards and eventually they were sold secondhand. That is something I have never been able to understand. Neither could I ever get any satisfactory explanation as to what became of these vans.

I am sure every Deputy agrees with me that there would be a greater consumption of fish throughout the State if there were continuity of supply. With frigidaire vans and frozen slabs we could guarantee continuity of supply throughout the 12 months. There is an onus on the Board to make available to fishmongers all over the country frozen slabs on which to display fish in a fresh condition. These slabs could be let at a yearly rental. In a very short time fishmongers would recoup their initial capital outlay, to say nothing of continuity of fresh fish supplies being guaranteed throughout the 12 months. That is what I should like to see happening.

Before the Minister replies, he might find out from Bord Iascaigh Mhara what became of the vans which were purchased but never put into use. At what loss were they sold? If what I suggest is done we will cut out the middleman and make fresh fish available at a lower cost to the consumer. At the same time, we will give the fisherman a greater profit, a profit which is now being channelled through the middleman. There is no reason why co-operative societies, provided they have the capital—this is something they could get by means of a loan—should not be able to distribute fish direct to the consumer, thereby reducing the cost and, at the same time, improving the price paid to the fisherman.

Would the Deputy not agree he is himself a middleman? Why talk about cutting out the middleman?

Who is a middleman?

The Deputy is.

Deputy O'Donnell is more like the jam in the sandwich.

In what way am I a middleman?

That is self-evident.

I should like to hear Deputy O'Donnell now on the Estimate.

I think we should get to the bottom of this.

I think what Deputy Murphy wants is to defend himself in court and not employ a solicitor. Maybe I am misinterpreting him.

If the Deputy is as successful in the court as he is on the public platform, there should be no need for him to employ a dog to bark for him.

The Deputy should extend an invitation to him to come and see him in court some day.

I do not think that would help him in any way. The Minister referred to our shellfish. I shall be pardoned if I bring up once more my hardy annual, the berry lobster. Each year when I put down a question about lobster landings I am told they have gone up. The value of our landings has gone up—there is no doubt whatever about that—but the weight of our lobster catch has gone down. I remember pre-1939 the price of lobsters in my locality was 9/- per dozen. Today they are £5-10-0 per dozen. But whereas then on a Saturday we had up to 40,000 dozen landed, today we are very lucky if we have between 6,000 to 8,000 dozen landed.

The numerical catch of our lobsters has gone down. Why is this happening? The Minister's predecessor made a bye-law prohibiting the catching of lobsters under a certain size—I think, nine inches. The trouble is there is no person to enforce that rule. I have asked fishermen if any person examined their fish and they told me no. I asked two civic guards what was the minimum size of lobster it was permissible to catch and they admitted to me they knew damn all about it. If we banned the catching of berry fish, any person could see whether a fish had spawn or not. They have done so in England, Scotland and most countries of Europe. I cannot understand why we do not do it. We cannot export our berry lobster to Britain. The big market today is France and we are permitted to export them there. The Minister should have a serious look at this. I cannot understand why we do not introduce a bye-law banning the catch and export of the berry lobster.

What is being done about our shellfish, apart from the lobster? We know some effort is being made to extend the fishing areas for the oyster. Very little is being done about escallops. Around our coast there are abundant supplies of cockles, mussels and clam. We know the attraction of clam chowder to the American. We know that most Irishmen do not know what it is because we do not commercially fish our clams. If you buy a bottle of cockles and examine it, you will find they have been bottled in Boston, Mass.

Or Omeath.

They bottle there in a small way. It is something that could be encouraged and enlarged. It is only in recent years they are doing it there. The east coast is not the ideal coast for shellfish apart from lobster. The south and west coasts are ideal because the water is unpolluted. We know in the Irish Sea we have pollution from both sides of the Channel. Something could be done, such as Deputy Donegan says is being done in Omeath, to improve the cockle industry.

Some years ago at the request of one of the Minister's predecessors I brought a bag of clams to one of the fish merchants in Dublin. He was delighted to get them. They were produced in one of the best-known restaurants in town. Clam chowder was advertised and there was considerable demand for it. Unfortunately, that man and Bord Iascaigh Mhara depended on my means of transport to bring these clams to Dublin. I certainly could not guarantee them without some purification beds for them. I thought I had done sufficient to prove, first, that there were clams available and, secondly, that there was a demand for them. I thought An Bord Iascaigh Mhara might have followed that up. I hope, if the Minister would make such a suggestion to them, it might yet be followed up. There is an abundance of clams on our west coast. They are used for bait for fishing lobster and longline fishing, whereas they could be used very much for human consumption.

One of the greatest drawbacks in the distribution of fish is the cost of transport. In the old days when fish were transported whole, that is, unfilleted, one paid for the transport of the offal, the head and the bone and it added up to the cost. With the location of these fishmeal factories the offal, the head and the bone are utilised there and only the edible portion is transported. Yet the charges for the transportation of the fish are really outrageous. They are what is killing the industry and one of the things putting up the cost to the consumer. There should be some method of subsidisation of the transport of fresh fish. I particularly refer to fresh fish.

Why not apply the co-operative method to the transport of fish?

The trouble about that, as I explained earlier, is this. They are merely concerned with the sale of fish at the place of landing. They have nothing whatever to do with distribution. If they had the distribution of fish, to where are they to convey them? They cannot afford these various outlets in the villages and towns to which I referred. If capital was made available to them, not only could they establish these retail shops but they could have their own transport for delivery to them at a much cheaper rate. I am in full agreement with what the Deputy says.

I know of one such co-operative transporting fish each morning to the fish market.

In their own lorry?

Of course, it is not a private concern.

It is a co-operative.

We have a number of private lorries transporting their own fish. I am referring to the new co-operatives such as we have at Galway and Killybegs. All they are concerned with is the sale of fish. They have no share in the profit from the retail sales at all. A lot of this could be done by co-operatives, such as Deputy Corish suggested, if we had many more of them. We should have one co-operative for the entire industry. That would be much better than a number of co-operatives, such as we have at present.

What the Minister says about all these advertisements, all these demonstrations, all these encouragements and enticements to consume fish and to cook fish is very good, but we would want to be careful how we go about these matters. Recently, there was a fish cookery competition. One of the dishes was the cooking of herring. I wonder where did those herring come from? No full herring are caught in this country at the moment other than matje herring, and it was illegal to catch them at the time. They could not have been full herring so they must have been spent herring, which are not fit for human consumption. We should be careful that our technical advisers advise these people before they utilise some of these products to be certain they are edible, and that spent or inedible fish are not used.

I have already referred to the Cú Feasa.I consider it, or a similar ship, could do a great amount of good in the matter of research. I do not consider the Cú Feasa is an ideal vessel but I consider it or a similar ship could be used to explore the fishing grounds or the external fishing grounds. They could find out the size and source of the matje herrings off the Donegal coast. They thrived away back around the year 1910.

The Minister referred to our drift net fishing. I want to refer to our main driftnet fishing, salmon. This is a very precarious life for these men. I do not know what happens in most places but on the coast of my county they operate ten, 15 or 20 miles off the coast. They are limited to five nights a week but nature will not give them five nights. If the night is too calm, there is no use in going out and if the night is too stormy, they cannot go to sea. It is a very precarious existence as I say, and I would appeal to the Minister to allow the net salmon boats to fish outside the three-mile territorial limit. They should be permitted to land fish on Sunday night or early Monday morning. That would mean, in other words, that only one night weekly was allowed for fishing during the two months in which they fished.

I certainly would not permit the fishermen to fish within the three-mile territorial limit but if they fish outside that limit, they should be permitted to land on Saturday night. They certainly will not fish the five nights a week and they cannot do a great deal of damage if they are permitted to fish six nights a week. I put a question to the Minister to appeal to Radio Éireann to broadcast a weather report every night before these fishermen go out. I feel the Minister did something about this because such a broadcast will now be given to the fishermen. This will ensure that before they go out, they will know whether conditions are good, and if they go out and the weather gets bad, they will be able to get back.

While I am on this question, may I say a few words about the Foyle Fisheries? As we all know, the Foyle Fisheries are operated by the two Governments who have appointed a joint committee to operate them. While I am not in a position to criticise their workings constructively or otherwise, I know for a fact that by limiting the number of licences which they are issuing to net fishermen, they are driving a number of men outside the country. The other day I was approached by a man called Kenneth Weir. He is a married man with five children. He was a part-time fisherman and lives on 26 statute acres of a mountain farm. His eldest child is six years of age and the youngest is nine months. Up to the 1962 season he had fished as a crew member of a boat. He has procured his own engine, boat and gear in order to obtain a licence. Unfortunately, a licence will not be granted to him. That is a very bad principle to set up. Actually, in 1963, this man was able to borrow or lease a licence issued to another man. That man has now taken his own licence again and this other man can no longer fish with it. He is unable to procure a licence, despite the fact that there has been a decrease of four licences in the locality. This young qualified part-time fisherman has been refused a new licence. The Minister, and possibly his counterpart in the North, should look into the issuing of these licences and ensure that justice and equity is done not only to existing fishermen but also prospective fishermen in order to encourage them to remain on the land and take up this livelihood of fishing.

The Minister referred to the boards of conservators and the good work which they are doing. I admit they are doing very good work but there is one aspect of their activities to which I should like to refer, that is, attendance at the bi-monthly meetings. They are not paid travelling expenses when they attend those meetings. If we wish to have the fishermen representatives attend these meetings and if we wish to have the poorer section of the industry represented on them, the least they should be granted is travelling expenses. The Minister should ensure that travelling expenses are paid to all members of boards of conservators. I would appeal further to him to sanction increases in the amount paid by these boards of conservators to their waterkeepers. Their waterkeepers have a very unpleasant, if I may use the expression, duty to do. We know that not all of us have great respect for them but they are an essential part of the machinery of conserving our fishing stocks and they must be paid a reasonable wage. It is ridiculous to offer £6 a half-year to a waterkeeper. Actually he is only part-time but £6 for three months work is ridiculous.

They have employed a mobile waterkeeper in my own board of conservators. I wonder if that is the ideal thing? It would be much better if we employed local keepers and paid them a living wage. Remember the boards have funds but they are not permitted to use them. They must keep a reserve of at least £1,000 a year. Although the boards have funds, they are not permitted to use the moneys which are collected by them in licences, rates and all the other methods of raising funds.

The Inland Fisheries Trust is certainly doing a very good job. I am not very much in favour of these rainbow trout farms which have been set up. I am afraid they are creating a very bad impression abroad of the nature of the fish which we export. The other day I happened to recommend rainbow trout as a dish to a man I met. He said he would not touch them. He said he purchased them on the market in Dublin and they were soft, sloppy and tasteless. When I made inquiries I found these were the particular fish which were raised on these rainbow trout farms.

They have improved.

I accept what the Minister has said. I am not in a position to express an opinion. If the Minister says they are improving, so much the better.

We have them here in the restaurant.

There is plenty of room for improvement.

They are getting better.

It is a good thing so long as they are improving.

We must arrange to put some more on the menu.

It might not be a bad thing at all. While I am on the subject, what about kippers? You can go into any hotel in the city and you will not see them on the menu. The Minister referred to the Dáil Restaurant and we should often see them on the menu there. They are a very tasty dish. When visitors from all over England go to the Isle of Man they buy a supply of kippers, pay for them in advance and they are then sent to them by mail throughout the entire year to the consignees. I think that the "get-up" now used for kippers for the market is ideal but, unfortunately, we are not seeing enough of it. The marketing of kippers in cellophane packets is ideal. I am not too enamoured of the boning of the kipper as I think it takes away from the flavour, which can be so delicious.

After a hard night.

I presume the Deputy has experience of fishing and that he is referring to a hard night's fishing. We will bear in mind that he says that a kipper is a very useful thing next morning, but if we cannot get one, then it is just too bad for us.

I wish the Minister every success in his Department as Minister for Fisheries. I hope he will continue to make a job of it and that he will appreciate that anything I have said was said not by way of destructive criticism but in the interests of the fishing industry, the employers and employees of the fishing industry and the consumers generally.

Like Deputy P. O'Donnell, I wish the Minister a successful career in charge of the Department of Fisheries. I must repeat what I said here on previous occasions on the Fisheries Estimate, when we had a change of personnel in charge of the Department, that it is remarkable that no man from a coastal area has been appointed to this portfolio during my term in this House and I think for some time previously. I think it would be advisable if the Government appointed a person from a coastal area who has experience of fishermen, of fishing and of the many problems attendant on that industry. The Government Party in particular have a large number of Deputies from coastal areas some of whom must be intimately associated with fishing. It is a pity that some such person was not appointed to this portfolio—and when I say that, it was not a reflection on the Minister: I had the same thing to say when Deputy O. J. Flanagan, for example, was appointed to that office. I feel that a person from a coastal area would have a better knowledge of the difficulties confronting fishermen than a person from an inland area.

There is nothing new or exciting in this Estimate. It is just a repetition of what we had last year. Deputy P. O'Donnell made a very comprehensive survey of our fisheries. It amazed me that he should start off by telling us that this is the second most important industry in the State. He should have said that it should be our second most important industry. In its present state, fishing is not by any means an important industry in this country and that is evidenced by what the Minister had to say in his opening statement.

We do not know the numbers employed in fishing. We were not given that information. However, we know the income derived from it. Having regard to the income derived from it, I think the amount demanded by the Minister in respect of this Estimate is exceptionally high. We have made no progress during the past year or in recent years; that is not the fault of the present Minister. In his concluding remarks he says that Deputies will agree that satisfactory progress has been made during the past year in the development of our inland fisheries and that he trusts that that progress will continue. Such progress could be improved upon if we had some new methods from those who are directing this industry. With our thousands of miles of coastline, our intake of fish and our income from fishing should be much higher.

During the present year, the income from sea-fishing, was £1,504,000. Surely that is not a substantial figure in view of our very long coastline? The return from our sea fisheries yielded only £1½ million. I regret that that is a very small figure. Away back in 1960, when money was much more valuable than it is today, our sea fishing yielded £1,612,000, according to the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

There is another £500,000 on top of that in respect of shellfish.

Having regard to the declining value of money, the position is not improving. We must review the position and alter the regulations governing this industry.

I should like a comprehensive account of the workings of Bord Iascaigh Mhara which is mainly in charge of our fishing industry. I should like to know what qualifications are taken into account in selecting fishermen for boats. I should also like to know how it is that despite the close, careful, diligent consideration that is supposed to be given to all applications for boats a number of successful applicants fail to honour their obligations and to meet their commitments. The main reason why I am making that case is that I feel that people who are fully qualified and who applied did not get the consideration they were entitled to. On the other hand, we know from page 3 of this report that, over a number of years, boats were given by Bord Iascaigh Mhara to people who were not qualified to manage or administer them the result being that they were unable to meet their obligations.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
Top
Share