Committee on Finance. - Fishery Harbour Centres Bill, 1967: Second Stage. – Dáil Éireann (18th Dáil) – Tuesday, 12 Dec 1967

Committee on Finance. - Fishery Harbour Centres Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to make statutory provisions for the establishment, development, operation, management and control of five major fishery harbour centres at Dunmore East, Castletownbere, Killybegs, Galway and Howth and also to provide powers for the acquisition, by agreement or compulsorily, of lands required for the establishment and development of these five major fishery centres.

The establishment and development of these harbour centres is in accordance with the Government's plans for the development of the sea-fishing industry as set out in the programmes for economic expansion, in the White Paper relating to the programme of sea fisheries development which was published in 1962 and in more recent public announcements.

As many Deputies may recollect, an experienced and renowned Swedish Harbour Consultant was commissioned in 1958 to examine the position as to harbours in relation to our sea-fishing industry and to advise on (1) the desirability and feasibility of concentrating the main fishery efforts at a few places, (2) the places at which the main fishing activity could best be concentrated and (3) the nature, extent and relative importance of the works and facilities to be provided at each of the places selected.

The decision to employ the harbour consultant was motivated by the need to concentrate our main fishery activities at specially developed modern fishery harbours with adequate berthage, flotation and shore facilities to facilitate our fishermen in the effective use of larger craft geared to employing the most up-to-date fishing methods.

The harbour consultant made an extensive survey of the Irish coastline and a searching examination of our various landing places. His report, which was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, was a comprehensive document and provided most useful information and advice for a long-term plan for fishery harbour development. Following consideration of that report it was publicly announced in 1960 that the Government had authorised preparatory work to be put in hands for the development of five ports as major fishery harbours at Castletownbere, Galway, Killybegs, Howth and Passage East. Dunmore East Harbour was substituted in 1962 for Passage East as the subsoil conditions at the latter were disclosed by trial borings to be unfavourable.

It was also publicly announced that legislation would be prepared to provide, among other things, for the future maintenance and operation of these harbours and for the acquisition of the necessary properties which would be required for their development. The hope was then expressed — and reiterated on a number of occasions since then in the course of the annual debates on the Fisheries Estimates — that negotiations for the acquisition of properties essential for the five harbours would be concluded without the exercise of compulsory powers. That hope has been realised in respect of some properties but, I regret to say, for various reasons compulsory powers are now required to acquire lands and properties in a number of remaining cases.

All the necessary preparatory technical and other investigations are completed for the five harbours and work has been proceeding at three of them for some time past — since July, 1963, in the case of Dunmore East, at Killybegs since April, 1964, and at Castletownbere since June, 1964. The development work at all five centres will take some years to complete. So far, over £½ million has been expended at the five centres on preparatory work, on dredging and constructional works. It is estimated that a further sum of about £300,000 will be expended on these harbour works in the current financial year. These harbours which are reasonably well distributed around the coast will provide good berthage, shelter and flotation for our fishing fleet together with essential ancillary shore facilities.

At this stage I would like to emphasise that the programme of major fishery harbour development will not prejudice in any way the improvement and development at other places — especially the small fish landing places around the coast which are used by many inshore and other fishermen. These small ports and landing places will not be neglected. Where improvements are needed to maintain or expand local fishing activities they will continue to be provided with State assistance.

The Bill consists of thirteen sections and a schedule which lists the five harbours coming within its scope. Section 2 empowers the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to make an order in relation to any of the five harbours mentioned in the schedule declaring the harbour and land adjoining it, as shall be specified in the order, to be a fishery harbour centre.

The purpose of this section is to transfer the five harbours to the Minister's control and to constitute in him a new and single harbour authority which will be responsible for their operation, management, development and maintenance. The object of acquiring land adjoining the harbour is to ensure that adequate space will be made available for essential harbour facilities and related purposes including ancillary industries. For obvious reasons, it would be the intention to include in a harbour centre for only such area of land as would be absolutely necessary.

The effect of a fishery harbour centre order will be to transfer to and vest in the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the harbour and any land in question which shall be the subject of that order together with all the related property, assets and liabilities of the existing harbour authority. Existing harbour authorities and their officers will cease to carry out any functions in relation to the harbours and for the future the Minister will exercise these functions. The effect of the orders will be to transfer to me Castletownbere Harbour from the Cork County Council; Dunmore East and Howth Harbours from the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland; and Killybegs Harbour from the Killybegs Harbour Commissioners.

On and from the transfer of Killybegs Harbour, the Killybegs Harbour Commissioners will stand dissolved as there will be no longer any reason for their continued existence. In the case of Galway, the new fishery harbour centre will be adjacent to the commercial harbour which will continue to remain the responsibility of the Galway Harbour Commissioners under the Harbours Acts, 1946 and 1947. Provision is, however, contained in this section that a fishery harbour centre order shall not be made by me in relation to a harbour now under the control and management of a harbour authority mentioned in the First Schedule to the Harbours Act, 1946, without the consent of the Minister for Transport and Power who is the responsible Minister for commercial harbours.

This relates specifically to Killybegs Harbour and also to Galway Commercial Harbour in so far as the proposed new fishery harbour centre at Galway may impinge on the area of the commercial harbour or otherwise affect the Galway Harbour Commissioners. Safeguards are also provided for any person who may be affected by a fishery harbour centre order. Notice must be given to the public of my intention to make the order and consideration must be given to any objections raised. If the objections are not withdrawn a public inquiry may be held. It is unnecessary for me to elaborate at this stage on the other consequential matters provided for in section 2.

In the provision of a properly designed fishery harbour centre it is necessary to provide not only adequate shelter, flotation and berthage for the fishing vessels which will use the harbour but also to provide necessary shore facilities. The shore facilities include the servicing of the fishing vessels, space for the handling and sale of fish, fish processing industries and, where appropriate, facilities for boat repairs and maintenance. Some land has already been acquired for these purposes at the centres by agreement but due to difficulties about title in some cases and because of failure to reach agreement or unwillingness to sell in others, it is necessary to seek statutory powers for compulsory acquisition.

Provisions to that effect are made in section 3 which is drafted on standard lines. Public notice must be given of the intention to enter on and acquire land by compulsory powers and in addition there is a special provision whereby land, or rights in relation to land or water, used in connection with the operation of commercial shipping or the exercise of the public right of navigation shall not be acquired compulsorily without the consent of the Minister for Transport and Power. Provision is also made that in default of agreement on the amount of the price or compensation which will be paid for any land or right acquired under this section the matter shall be determined in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

As the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries shall be responsible for the management, control, operation and development of each of the five major fishery harbour centres on and from the commencement of each relevant fishery harbour centre order, provisions are made in section 4 of the Bill to give me necessary and adequate power to perform those functions. This section will enable me to make whatever bye-laws are necessary and desirable for the management, control and operation of the harbour centres and to make orders fixing rates, tolls and other charges for the use of facilities and services in the centres. Existing orders, regulations and bye-laws relating to these harbours which are in force at the time of transfer will continue to apply to the harbours in question until they are amended or revoked.

In addition to having the responsibility of providing adequate facilities at each centre for the sale of fish landed at the centres, the section will enable the Minister to require that fish landed at the centre shall be offered for sale at the centre and will also enable him to regulate and control the manner in which sales shall be conducted. Whether it will be necessary for me to use any or all of these powers will depend on circumstances from time to time but at this stage I should make it perfectly clear that I will have no hesitation in invoking these powers if the unorthodox practices at Dunmore East do not cease.

When orders or bye-laws relating to the management and control of harbour centres are to be made it will be obligatory on the Minister to publish notice of his intention to make them and to state the purposes for which they are to be made. A period of 21 days is specified within which interested persons may submit objections to the proposed instruments. Having considered the objections it is provided, however, that the Minister may make the order or bye-law with or without modification as he may think proper. Notice of the making of the order or bye-law must be published in Irish Oifigiúil. The usual provision is also made for penalties on persons or bodies who contravene orders or bye-laws or who may be involved in such contraventions.

The appointment of staff necessary for the management and control of the harbour centres is provided for but it may be convenient and economical for the Minister to delegate the exercise of some of his powers and functions to a body such as the Commissioners of Public Works. Provision is made to permit the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to arrange for such a delegation of powers. A similar provision is also made in section 3 for the delegation to the Commissioners of powers in relation to the acquisition of land in fishery harbour centres.

The provisions in section 5 are customary and concern the use to which I may put any property vested in me under the Bill when enacted. Section 6 provides for the future maintenance of harbours in fishery harbour centres.

Taking sections 7, 8 and 9 together, it will be noted that I propose to establish, maintain and manage a fund to be known as the Fishery Harbour Centre Fund. The account of this fund, which will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General each year and laid before each House of the Oireachtas, will indicate the annual income and expenditure related to the fishery harbour centres. All moneys received in respect of rates, tolls and other charges and non-repayable grants from the Exchequer will be paid into this fund. Out of the fund will be paid all outlay and expenditure in connection with the operation and management of the harbours.

I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.

Mr. Clinton

I welcome the Bill in so far as it appears to be setting out to provide facilities in five of the major fishing harbours that, indeed, are long overdue. The Minister referred to a report by a Swedish expert, and I noticed he appeared deliberately to avoid mentioning this man's name. I had some difficulty trying to pronounce it and I wonder if the Minister could tell me how I am to pronounce "Bjuke". Is this to be called the "Duke" report or how are we to pronounce it?

Mr. Blaney

In fact, I avoided using it myself.

Mr. Clinton

Whatever the name, I had an opportunity to glance through the report and it is obvious the intentions of the Bill follow closely the recommendations made in the report which struck me as being the result of a very thorough investigation of the possibility in relation to the development of major fishery centres. I was glad to hear the Minister emphasising that the legislation being introduced now will not in any way interfere with the work that is going on and the work it is intended to carry out in the future in the smaller fishing harbours. This is extremely important and it was emphasised in the report of the American survey team.

It was emphasised in that report that those smaller harbours had a contribution to make, both socially and economically, to the Department as a whole. I welcome the fact that we at last seem to have reached the point in this country where we cease to look at the fishing industry as a sort of social service, a way in which a certain number of people adjacent to the sea coast were able to supplement their incomes to a point which made life tolerable and without being an undue burden on the State. We have failed for far too long to see the potential that is obviously in the fishing industry in this country.

I believe a new dawn arrived on the occasion when the late President Kennedy decided to assist us in this matter with the experts he sent over to join our own people to explore the possibilities of the development of the fishing industry in this country. This is a further step to enable that sort of major development to take place in the fishing industry. I have deplored on occasions before the lack of confidence there appeared to be in the whole prospects of the fishing industry. I feel this was amply borne out by the fact that capital investment by the Government over the years in the fishing industry has been deplorably small and that they themselves had no faith in the future of the fishing industry. They showed this by their refusal to invest money in the fishing industry. This was going on at the time when other projects with much less prospects were receiving attention and considerable capital sums from the Government.

Five harbours have been selected for development and some work has been started and is in progress in certain of those harbours. I was a little bit disappointed in not hearing anything at all from the Minister about the harbour which is nearest to the constituency which I represent, that is Howth Harbour. I remember going out to Howth some time last year and watching the performance there and the work that had to be carried out with the landed fish there because of the inadequacy of the harbour and the inadequacy of the facilities provided there. If my recollection serves me properly, in 1960 when this report came out it was estimated that the improvement of Howth Harbour to bring it up to the standard required and desired would cost approximately £650,000. That figure has certainly not diminished since then. It is obvious that if that harbour is to be developed along the lines recommended in that report it would now cost anything up to £1 million or £1½ million.

Howth is a first-class centre because it is adjacent to the biggest market we have in this country for fish, namely, Dublin city. It is also adjacent to the export market. I appreciate and realise that if the fishing industry is to be developed as it should be developed in the future we will have to look to the export market for outlets for the increased landings we hope to get, and which we are bound to get, provided we show confidence in the industry and give the facilities, which are needed, to it.

The Minister has said that the intention behind this Bill is to give him compulsory acquisition powers to secure sufficient land and sufficient property, if necessary, in the region of those five major harbours so that all the facilities required for up-to-date and fairly large fishing centres could be provided. It is my opinion, when buying land, that we should err on the side of having too much land. It is certainly easier to dispose of land than to get it when we need it with the increased building going on. It is much cheaper to buy too much land because we would then have it on hand. If we are to have major fishing harbours with all the facilities required by way of processing factories, proper storage accommodation, cold stores, ice banks, handling facilities and auctioneering facilities, it will require considerable space.

It is also mentioned, I think, in the course of the report that it would be desirable to have a net factory in the same general area. It would also be desirable to have boat repairs carried on in this area and also boatbuilding. All those facilities must be provided near where boats are landed. Otherwise you will have fishermen, who are really producers, who are really people out to land fish, not able to do so.

The interests of fishermen should be looked after and they should be enabled to land their fish efficiently and the entire marketing operation from the moment the fish are landed on the pier should be taken care of. Those fishermen who have borne the hazards of the sea should get a fairly reasonable reward so that they will continue in the business. I confessed here last year that my acquaintance with the fishing industry was, indeed, very meagre and very slight. During the holiday period of this year I was in Dingle and I availed myself of the opportunity to go out in a trawler for a day's fishing to see what the men went through and to see how hard it was for them to earn a living at sea. I can certainly say that those men said that they had an average day's fishing. They went out at 5 o'clock in the morning and they returned at 5 in the afternoon. That is a long day at sea but there was no fortune in the catch.

I consider that in those circumstances every possible facility should be provided for those people. The investment in that 50 foot boat was £20,000. I know there are fairly generous facilities provided by way of grants and loans in order to obtain boats, but nevertheless, it is a pretty large investment. It is a fairly hazardous life requiring a lot of skill. Unless we provide those people with modern up-to-date facilities for handling, packaging, processing and marketing I do not think the fishing industry is likely to develop in the way we would all like it to develop.

Again, if my memory serves me correctly, in the report it was stated that it was desirable that the control of the operation of the various fishing ports should be in the hands of one local authority. We have obviously departed from this idea and now the State is taking over entirely and absolutely the control of those fishing ports. I do not know whether that is a good thing or not. It may perhaps be a good thing that that should happen at the start. It may be a good thing that the State should undertake and that the Minister and his Department should undertake the responsibility of setting up those harbours on a proper footing and ensuring that all the facilities are provided and that they are worked efficiently.

However, having done that, my own personal view is that it is extremely important to involve the fishermen at every point. I feel that you must get the people in the industry with you, and if they are not with you, you are in serious trouble and will not have success. Serious consideration should be given to the co-operative management of these fishery centres eventually. I am not saying at this point that the time is ripe for it. Indeed, the experience which the Minister has referred to in Dunmore East is a sorry one and is indicative of the fact that some authority must move in and take over if people cannot settle their own differences and work in harmony and for the good of their own industry. I would like to see consideration given to the question as to whether there is an alternative or no alternative to the State moving in and taking over completely the establishment, the running and the management of these ports.

There is one point mentioned in the Bill — I went through it roughly — and it was that fish landed at a port must be offered for sale there and then. Personally, I do not like the sound of "must be offered for sale there and then". I would hate, as a producer of any commodity, to be directed by the Minister or by any other authority in the land to sell it at a particular spot and in a particular way. There is something wrong and something dictatorial about that. If a man or a company for that matter that has invested money in boats and gear and are able to land fish at a port feel that there is a better market somewhere else or that they can make a contract and send the fish direct to some destination or other and that the question of quality standard can be guaranteed and supervised, I do not think they should be denied that opportunity. It is indicated quite clearly in the Bill that the intention is that that must happen. I hope that when the Minister is replying he will refer to this. It is, perhaps, not extremely important but, nevertheless, it is a feature that I would object to.

One of the things I felt about this Bill was that it hardly had gone far enough. It covers five ports and five ports only. I feel that in some way it could be left open to include such other ports as the Minister from time to time felt should come within the scope of the legislation because I feel that it is quite on the cards that other centres and other situations may arise where it might be advisable to move in and do something about putting a particular harbour on a proper footing.

I have put a couple of question marks here on section 4. I shall read it to get my own memory working on the thing:

The Minister may ... by order, fix rates, tolls and other charges for the use of facilities (including the harbour) and services in the centre and provide for their payment and collection and for penalties and remedies for their non-payment (including distress and sale of ships, boats and goods in respect of which any rates, tolls or charges are payable),

Perhaps this is just a re-enactment of something that is already in harbour legislation that I am not aware of. There is another paragraph which reads:

The Minister may ... provide, or arrange for the provision of, facilities in the centre for the sale of fish landed at the centre and require that fish so landed be offered for sale at the centre and that sales of fish at the centre be conducted in such manner as the Minister may specify.

I take it that that probably applies particularly to Dunmore East and the difficulties that are there but it is unfortunate that it has to be covered in this way. The power here should be conditional on circumstances arising where it would, in fact, be necessary for the Minister or some authority to move in and take over where undesirable practices were being carried out.

There is the question of the takeover of personnel who are in existence at the moment at some of those ports. Galway apparently is an exception in so far as any development that might take place in Galway would be a completely separate development and would not be in any way associated with the commercial harbour there. I think it was part of the report that, in fact, the present harbour position is not by any means the best position for a fishing harbour and that it would be cheaper and much more suitable to site the fishing harbour at a point adjacent to the present processing factory. Apparently there is no question of people becoming redundant. I would like to ask the Minister when he is replying to refer to the question of the taking over of people at whatever level they happen to exist at the moment and the safeguarding of their positions and their rights.

I would also like to ask the Minister if in providing the facilities that he feels will be necessary if we are to have up-to-date and worthwhile fishing centres whether it will be necessary to take over private houses or private property of that sort. If so, is it the intention that regardless of the attitude of the people concerned their property will, in fact, be taken over by compulsory purchase and that it will be paid for in the usual way that property is paid for as a result of compulsory purchase and arbitration proceedings? I assume that that is the intention and one only hopes that too much inconvenience and too much disturbance will not arise as a result of taking the necessary measures to secure sufficient property adjacent to the harbours to ensure that we have the facilities we need.

Having regard to the amount of fishmeal that is imported here annually — I was told recently that in the past year we imported three-quarters of a million pounds worth of fishmeal — I wonder if it is the intention that that would be one of the facilities that it would be necessary to provide adjacent to harbours or is it wiser to move the fishmeal plant farther away from such ventures? I know that a recent decision to establish a fishmeal factory on the east coast has met with a considerable amount of opposition in an area that was being developed more or less as a tourist centre.

I know it is not in order to bring within the scope of the discussion in relation to the five specific harbours the fact that the Minister also mentioned small harbours. If an insurmountable difficulty arises in Laytown, and the people in Loughshinny are anxious to get this industry and have a site available for it, the Minister should take a note of it in passing. The reasons for the selection of the various harbours were amply explained in the report and it needs no further discussion or explanation, at least to my mind. They were obviously selected for good reasons; they are sited at a convenient distance to the fishing grounds and are fairly close to facilities for selling the fish to suitable markets. There are adequate sites available in the area. Such centres should be fairly attractive residential areas and this is an aspect of fishery development that should not be overlooked.

In the past we were inclined to overlook the social services that were necessary and desirable in our fishing harbours. The provision of housing accommodation and suitable schools and other social services is called for if we are to keep our fishing people in the area. We must make work in fishing as attractive as we can for the people in it. Otherwise, they leave and go to somewhere else preferable to them. It is important, as well, to have a fairly safe harbour, safe in all weathers, and it is extremely essential to provide artificial shelter if it is not naturally there. These are the considerations, I take it, which have motivated the decision to develop these five centres. I am glad to hear the Minister say that it will not in any way interfere with, or hold up, development of other harbours.

There is one harbour in my constituency and its extension and development has taken many years. I do not think a start has been made there yet even though we have all the preliminary plans. I was hoping the Minister in introducing this legislation would explain why it has taken so long to get to this area. A decision was taken as far back as 1960, repeated in 1962 and we were told in 1962 that this legislation was being prepared. We were told in 1965 it was being drafted. What is the reason for the hold-up? Why are we dragging our feet so much in relation to the fishing industry and why have we failed so completely to show our confidence and make the investment necessary in the industry?

I put down a question about a week ago about the amount of capital investment in the fishing industry in the past ten years. It is in the region of £2,250,000. Most of that went into boats, not harbour development or facilities for processing or handling of the fish and the marketing that is required. I hope this Bill is an indication that the Government have now made up their minds to tackle this industry seriously and make the necessary investment available for progress so as to reach the full potential of the industry in the shortest possible time.

I know that the development of harbours — marketing facilities at the harbours, landing and processing facilities — is not everything. The fish must be caught, for instance. This aspect cannot be neglected either; the two things go hand in hand. The training of fishermen is also of paramount importance. On them depends whether we have any fish to process and I am glad to see this measure coming in. I do not know whether it is a good thing that the State should take this on completely. I have some doubt in my mind about that. I would prefer to have this done by co-operatives. This may be the best move in the first instance, the State to move in and put it on a proper footing, and then when the time is ripe to hand it over.

I see scope for the selection of appointees to various positions and I see the possibility of preference for people because of the colour of their eyes or one thing or another. When it comes to making the necessary appointments to man the harbours I hope these people will not be appointed because they happen to be members of the local cumann but that the real abilities and work of the people will be the deciding factor. It is wrong that a Government Department or a Minister of State should have control of direct appointments in anything of this kind. There should be an independent authority to do this. Otherwise, we will arrive at a situation where it will be like the appointment of a postmaster or postmistress and there will be endless rows in this House about the appointments. If there were some way by which an impartial authority could make the appointments of the various people who will be necessary it would be preferable so that the business of these harbours will be properly conducted and carried out. There should not be hand-outs or be seen or suspected to be hand-outs; this is very important. We should not do anything that will in any way affect the future of the fishing industry. This is an industry in which I, personally, see great potential if it is handled properly and if we treat it with the confidence we should and make the investment in it which I believe is called for.

Mr. Molloy

I am one who has always believed that the State has not been investing sufficient capital in the fishing industry. When one sees a measure such as that before us tonight one cannot but feel heartened that something positive will be done to help to expand our sea-fishing industry.

I have great hopes that with the successful implementation of these five major harbours we will see a great leap forward in that sector of our economy, sea-fishing, which I feel up to this has been rather sadly neglected.

In my area on the west coast of Ireland there has been more rapid development in the sea-fishing industry over the past five-six years. It would be fair, I think, to give some credit to the various State agents who are working towards this end and reporting to the officials in the Department, and also to Bord Iascaigh Mhara, who I feel are at this time doing an excellent job for the development of our sea-fishing.

Unfortunately, I had not time to read fully through the Minister's speech but there is a special reference in it to my own constituency and to the development of one of these major harbours in Galway. I note that there is reference to the fact that there will be some difficulty for the harbour commissioners there with regard to property in order to facilitate the development of the fishery harbour. As a member of Galway Harbour Commissioners, I would say to the Minister and, indeed, all the interested bodies who are involved in helping to achieve this very worthy development that they can be assured of my personal assistance as a harbour commissioner. The other members of the Galway Harbour Board intimated to me that they are only too anxious to help if there are difficulties so as to ensure that a satisfactory arrangement can be arrived at between the Galway Harbour Commissioners and the Fisheries Branch.

I hope the Minister will not be forced to use compulsory powers or to seek the permission of the Minister for Transport and Power to acquire the land which I understand is so necessary for the development of the Galway harbour. I would lay very strong emphasis on the fact that the people in Galway and the fishermen in the area want this major fishery harbour to start very soon. We are getting slightly impatient. We realise there may be slight difficulties in our area but we feel these could have been overcome long before now. We hope they will be overcome in the very near future. We trust there will not be any further delay in starting actual construction work on the major harbour in Galway.

If one pays a visit to Galway Harbour and inspects the berthage provided there for the Galway Bay fleet of fishing trawlers, one cannot but agree that the situation is ludicrous. The berthage is not sufficient even for two or three trawlers. Yet, the whole fleet has to tie up to very dangerous side entrances which never were intended for fishing trawlers but that is where they have had to tie up for the past three or four years. In unfavourable weather or in a storm, some of these boats have to be taken out by the fishermen and they must ride out the storm in the bay lest the boats should be damaged in the inadequate and inefficient berthage provided for them at the moment. These men have devoted their life savings to the acquisition of their boats. The cost of them is very high. It is a big risk to ask any person to tie up his boat in a place which he knows is not safe. This position has obtained sometimes with 15 trawlers: the number varies. It depends on who is in and who is out, which boats are in Aran, and so on. I cannot lay too much emphasis on the fact that the situation in Galway is one of extreme urgency. I appeal very sincerely to the Minister and to the officials of his Department to get cracking on Galway Harbour. Let us see some progress there and let us see the construction work starting.

We have seen the development that has taken place in three out of five areas. We do not see why Galway should again be last on the list or why, if there are five names on the list, that of Galway should be last. I appeal to the Minister and to his officers to put their heads together so as to get going on this without delay. Certainly, we cannot tolerate a continuance of the present position. It is lucky that we have not lost any boats so far. If any boats are lost between now and the time work on the harbour is completed, some responsibility must fall on some of those who have not acted in the proper manner in which this work could have been set in motion long before now.

I have been in Dunmore East and seen the fine work carried out there. I fail to understand why such progress was made down there while we in Galway are left at the tail-end of the race. Even if we are behind at this stage, we shall not accept any further delays. If pressure is required, I would ask the Minister to exert it. I only hope that the Galway Harbour Commissioners will co-operate fully when it comes to a decision and that we shall not have to resort to any extreme measures in order to ensure that the work at Galway will progress.

Mr. Clinton

Greencastle held it up.

Mr. Blaney

Careful, now.

Mr. Molloy

Is Deputy Clinton talking about castles in the air? I want the Minister to dispel a rumour that is circulating in Galway that there is a possibility of Galway losing its major harbour and this development. I should like him to refute that statement clearly because it is discouraging to those involved in the fishing industry. It is most discouraging to those who are making plans for subsidiary factories in the surrounding area and, generally, it creates an air of indecision about this whole project. We should like a clear statement that the work in Galway will start in the immediate future.

Some difficulties have arisen in Galway as regards the setting-up of factories subsidiary to the fishing industry. The Minister is aware of them. Under this legislation, a certain area of ground will be made available for people interested in building factories connected with the work of the fishing fleet. I refer to canning factories and, generally, to any type of work attached to fishing. We had difficulty in siting a fishmeal factory. The county medical officer of health refused permission for the siting of this factory in the vicinity of Galway Harbour and eventually it was set up outside Tuam, 18 miles away. That is not very economic for the owners and promoters of that project who were anxious to develop the fishing industry and who saw the need for a fishmeal plant in the area. It is a second-hand plant which was in Killybegs but it is working satisfactorily. However, it is situated 18 miles from the fishery port. One can appreciate the expense and annoyance of transport costs from Galway to Tuam for processing. Certainly it is not the most economical or most efficient manner in which this industry could have been set up.

There are people interested in setting up fish factories in and around Galway city. We want to help them to come there and to set up industries there. They can do so only if this deep fishing harbour is constructed. That is why we are so anxious to see that development takes place immediately. The grant to fishermen purchasing outboard motors was withdrawn recently by the Department.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would not relevantly arise on the Bill which deals with the development of five major fishery harbours.

Mr. Molloy

Very good. I would ask the Minister to re-introduce that grant. A lot of fishermen were caught on the wrong foot. We had hoped to see a continuance of that grant. There must be incentives to fishermen if the fishery harbour in Galway is to be a complete success. We must encourage owners of trawlers to get into bigger boats. One of the biggest difficulties in taking that step is that if they are doing well now in 50-footers, they are reluctant to go into 70- or 100-footers. We know that the development of fishing and the need for this harbour which it brings about depends on larger boats and I appeal to the Minister to see if there is some new way in which successful fishermen can be encouraged to go into bigger boats. The fishing industry is probably one of the least tapped of all our national resources and we shall make no substantial improvement on the present situation unless we can encourage successful fishing skippers to purchase larger boats and go out into the deep sea and be able to stay out.

We are helping to provide facilities for this in providing major harbours and with that I am asking the Minister to encourage as far as possible the acquisition of larger boats by successful fishermen. Even if it means a further injection of capital I would suggest that the Minister should go ahead because the larger harbours will not be much use unless we have the fishermen using them for bigger boats.

Mr. James Tully

I shall be very brief. We agree that this is an excellent idea. Anybody travelling around the centre of the country would never realise that we are an island country because we do not seem to have been very interested in the development of fishing up to now. The Minister may say that £500,000 was spent recently but I understand that includes money spent on boats and supplies as well as on various projects for fishing, but surely the Minister must agree that for a number of years until very recently the fishing industry was badly mishandled.

A fishmeal factory was set up at Killybegs some years ago and there was some difficulty with the local fishermen who, I suppose rightly, wanted to sell fish to the highest bidder and if there was a market for fish they did not want it to go to the factory. The people running the factory, in an effort to make it pay, went to Greenland and bought two 75-foot boats and brought them home but the Government promptly made an order that nothing bigger than a 70-foot boat could ply with the result that the fishmeal factory then closed down with substantial loss not alone to the Government but to the Irish people who had taken it over and to the fishermen, if they had realised it.

Later, I saw fish caught at Clogherhead taken by CIE trucks across the width of Ireland to Killybegs. This latest development appears to be an attempt to improve five fishing harbours that are fairly evenly placed. I should like the Minister to comment on one or two aspects and one is the fact that the compulsory powers being taken appear to give the Minister the right to use in any way he wishes the land and water he takes over. I am sure he will agree that in many cases there are fishing rights held by families dating back many years, perhaps 100 or 150 years. The Minister should be very careful about that. Secondly, it appears that some people, because of the dissolution of one or two harbour boards, may be out of a job and if that happens, since somebody would be required to do the work, would the Minister suggest that where possible these men should be re-employed or compensated in some way? As it stands, it is the Board of Works that would get the job of the management or control of the areas taken over by the Minister and it is possible that people many years in employment with the harbour commissioners may lose their jobs.

I had a question down to the Minister about the pension scheme which harbour commissioners have and I was surprised to find that, apparently, it was not operating too well. Accordingly, the Minister will understand why I am concerned about people losing their employment without having a pension scheme and why they may be in an awkward position. We in the Labour Party agree that it is about time that a definite effort was made to improve the fishing industry. We believe the amount of money being made available will need to be stepped up considerably because at present we are apparently trying to buy goods and services which are not available for the amount we propose to spend. I wish the Minister the best of luck in his efforts to improve the fisheries not alone in those five harbours but in the others throughout the country.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

A number of matters were raised by the few Deputies who spoke. The matter of investment in the fishing industry was mentioned and there was an allegation that we do not take it too seriously. Possibly this is fair enough comment but, on the other hand, who is accusing whom of not taking enough interest in this industry? For the first time now — and, of course, we are being criticised because we have not done it earlier — we are providing a major Fishery Harbour Bill which will enable a great deal of development in a real sense to be contemplated for the future. It will be the basis on which I hope a great deal of development of our fisheries should take place.

It is true that a few million pounds were invested in recent years in this industry not including the moneys now being spent on the major harbours I have mentioned. There is no doubt that more money will be spent but while we talk about developing fisheries I wonder how many people stop to think what we must do in order to achieve this development. It is not a question of somebody not being interested over the years, or of not doing what they might have done but it is purely the hard facts that first, we need the fishermen, then the ports and the facilities. It is doubtful which of these should come first but what we have been doing recently is tackling the matter on this comprehensive basis and trying by various devices, possibly only short-term, interim measures, to provide more fishermen with the necessary skills to go to sea and fish, not in currachs or inshore boats but with bigger boats and deepwater trawlers that are a necessary part of any major development in our fisheries. That is the most essential element of the three required. We undoubtedly have available the factor that makes everything possible, the fish and the fishing grounds available near our coasts, with an abundance of fish of a quality comparable to that of any other part of the world. Given that, we need more fishermen, more boats and more facilities for landing, handling, processing, storing, selling and distribution.

It is on this broad basis that I think our fishery people have been working, including Bord Iascaigh Mhara, and I think that what is required now is a sharp injection of speed into the process. They are on the right lines and have laid the proper foundation and what we are dealing with here is a great part of that foundation. What we will need is the will to go forward more quickly than in the past and that will entail greater expenditure on additional facilities for the fishermen. This is probably the most vital aspect of all. Side by side with this naturally will develop the demand for bigger boats and for training and this will require greater help from the Government. These major harbour developments will benefit smaller harbours which have been serving the fishing industry for a long number of years. Because of the development of our major harbours many of these other harbours will benefit because they will be complementary to one another. Therefore, the fact that we are taking these steps is in no way to be taken as an indication of any lessening of our interest in other harbours. As I say, they must all go together in the building up generally of our fishing industry.

There is an interest in fishing particularly among our younger people today that has not been evident for generations past. It is probable that the public are responding to our long-term propaganda, if you like, in regard to the big future for fishing here. The expansion of our fishing industry depends, first, and foremost, on the provision of trained personnel to man the boats efficiently, and potential fishermen seem to have accepted the fact that there is a bright future for them. We are moving in the right direction, probably a bit slowly for many, but certainly in the right direction, providing educational facilities for those who wish to make a career in this industry. We must also provide for the development of offshore facilities, processing, storage, ice plants and so forth. There is need for a certain amount of impetus on this side of the industry and this is being provided. The return from fishing today for the amount of capital invested is, perhaps, the best return of any compared with any business you care to name. It can be seen now that there is a place in this industry for many thousands of our people rather than the hundreds that are participating in it now.

As regards the various points raised, Deputy Clinton mentioned the matter of Howth which he said was scarcely mentioned. "Canon" Burke has arrived, and it is appropriate time to mention Howth.

Mr. Blaney

There is a lot to be said for that. If the Minister takes over holus-bolus the entire operations of these five major harbours, would it not be strange if he should hand over to someone else the appointment of those who will run those harbours in his name? There would not be a lot of sense in that, apart from my view that a Minister should make appointments and take responsibility for them afterwards, rather than duck behind some anonymous body we have no opportunity of challenging.

In regard to Galway Harbour, if one were to judge by the demand in Galway it is not Galway Harbour as we know it that would merit consideration but further out in Galway Bay towards Connemara, where fishing has been a traditional way of life down the years for a great number of people. If it were possible to have this sort of major development further out in the bay, I believe it would be a good thing. But physical conditions make it impossible to do this and Galway city has been chosen. I hope that the interests in Galway so alive to the commercial development of the city and its shipping activities will find a place for us and not crowd us out. I hope they will appreciate what this major development can mean to Galway and will give us a fair crack of the whip so that we can get the fullest co-operation. Some people incline me to believe that the value of this major fishing harbour development in Galway is not fully appreciated, that some people feel it may conflict with commercial development which may be of a more passing nature than the development of fisheries.

It has been suggested that we have been somewhat lax in getting on with the development in Galway and there is a plea for us to go ahead. I am making a plea in reverse: that those in Galway really interested in fisheries development should appreciate the long-term value of the harbour development in Galway city and that the more transitory benefits from the commercial trade should be weighed in proper perspective.

Of course, the local cumann was mentioned. When you get down to it, along the west coast or the east coast, if you want a good man——

Mr. Clinton

He has to be in the cumann.

Mr. Blaney

——he is obviously in the cumann. There is no doubt about it. He is bound to be in it. However, that is not really the exercise we are engaged in at present. I hope this Bill will get the speedy passage it deserves. It is undoubtedly needed, whether you regard it as coming too long after its time or in time. It can do a very good job, and it can be a beacon, as it were, in the development of our fisheries.

We as the Government are fully alive to the undoubted long term big business potential of fisheries for so many of our people. We want our people to accept this as being of real worth. No one can set a limit on it at this stage. The potential of development in fisheries is enormous for a country like ours, particularly in the west, where so many people can be usefully and profitably employed not only for their own benefit but for the benefit of the economy in general. If we can only get across fully and completely the lesson now being learned by those who are participating in a progressive way in fishing, we will not have any great difficulty in getting fishermen and providing them with boats, and the landing and processing and selling and storage facilities which are essential. We want people to appreciate the worth of fishing so that they can influence young people to go into fishing and this in turn will enable us to provide them with boats of the necessary size and with the proper gear. This Bill is now attempting to provide in a big way for future development in our fishing industry.

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 7.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 13th December, 1967.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 12 Dec 1967

Committee on Finance. - Fishery Harbour Centres Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Dec 1967