Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 1972

Vol. 258 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Vote 38: Fisheries (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1972, for salaries and expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry grants-in-aid.

—(Minister for Defence).

Mr. Begley

When I reported progress I was speaking about a company known as Shannon Atlantic Fisheries Limited. During the course of the debate I said Mr. P. Ó Síocháin was a defeated Fianna Fáil candidate. That is not correct. He was a defeated Labour candidate and I wish to put that on record. If I mentioned another party it was a mistake on my part.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to let us know if An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are making a concerted effort to squeeze out the small skippers. The average fisherman, aged from 20 to 25 years, has no hope of getting the £3,500 or £4,000 necessary for a deposit for a trawler. It would be a worthwhile scheme if An Bord Iascaigh Mhara could arrange to deduct a certain amount of money from the weekly wages of the young apprentices so that when they reached the age of 25 years they could qualify for boats. It would be a tremendous incentive to young people to know that at the age of 25 years they could own their own boats.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the reason for the delay in construction of the school it was proposed to build in Donegal. Last year we were told that the school would be built then but so far nothing has been done. Also, would the Parliamentary Secretary please tell us the drop-out rate among the trainee fishermen? I have been told that the rate is as high as 50 per cent and if this is correct there must be something wrong with the scheme.

An allowance of £4 per week is given to the young trainees but this amount is completely inadequate. A more realistic sum would be £7 or £8 per week. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that it is ridiculous to expect young boys to make do with £4 a week, especially when they are living away from home. I would ask him to do everything possible to increase this allowance.

Some one and a half years ago I asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if his Department had a conservation policy for fisheries and I was told that this policy was in course of preparation. So far it has not materialised and it is long overdue. Some of the fishermen on the south-west coast have grave misgivings about the new type of trawler An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have introduced, namely, the stern trawler. The fishermen object to the type of net being used in this trawler; they claim it will rake the bottom of the ocean and destroy the spawning grounds. These are genuine fears and the Parliamentary Secretary should try to allay the fears of the fishermen in this regard. If these trawlers arrive at the ports there will be an even more drastic type of agitation than was used by the Dublin Housing Action Committee. Whether they are right or not, the fishermen are convinced that these trawlers will destroy the fishing grounds. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this matter in detail in his reply.

Much play was made by the Parliamentary Secretary about the two research ships but it is well known that these two ships are tied to the piers for most of the year. It would be enlightening if the Parliamentary Secretary told us how many hours fishing those trawlers spent in the last year and how many different crews were engaged during that time. The conditions on board these boats are disgraceful. This is why the crew do not rejoin the boats and the skippers are obliged to look for new crew frequently. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us about conditions on board those trawlers.

Another matter causing concern is pollution and Deputy Blaney referred to this in his speech. It is well known that effluent from silos is flowing on to some of our strands and this type of pollution is particularly severe. I saw a stretch of coast in Dingle where effluent from a silo pit flowed into the tide. Within a radius of two miles all the shellfish had died. Inspectors from the Department should inspect the various harbours, particularly checking if effluent from silo pits is contaminating the areas. This could be a tremendous problem in the future and we should take action now. The strand I have mentioned in County Kerry was famous for razor fish, scallops and many other types of fish but there is no live fish in this area now. If this kind of pollution is not prevented it is possible that it may get out of control.

With regard to Dingle Harbour, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should have given a cash grant to provide a deep freeze for the fishermen in the co-op at Dingle. When a certain property came on the market some time ago, the fishermen were prepared to put up £31,000 to buy the property. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should have stepped in and helped them to buy the property but the Shannon Atlantic Fisheries bought the property and squeezed out the local fishermen. It is possible that there will be conflict in the area in the future. The company will be able to store fish in their deep-freeze and put it on the market in opposition to the fishermen in the co-op. In this way there will be local friction which could have been avoided. I was at a meeting when it became known that the property, which was owned by the Blasket Sea Foods, was being put on the market. At that meeting the fishermen subscribed approximately £8,000, they received money from local businessmen, and were able to gather £31,000. It was good to see local fishermen invest their savings in further development for themselves but it was wrong that a company should come along and, with the aid of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, squeeze out the local fishermen. It would be very wrong if that type of thing developed. It has started at Dingle and it could happen at other ports as well. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of my remarks.

At the moment dredging is supposed to be in operation at Dingle Harbour. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and Roinn na Gaeltachta had a great deal to do with getting the dredging started, but it is now at a full stop. The dredger there seems to be obsolete. Alternative proposals have been put up by the local fishermen and the local chamber of commerce. The contractor must have run into difficulties; otherwise the work would be going on. This may be more a matter for the Board of Works, but An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should consult with the Board of Works in order to get this work under way again, because we were long enough waiting for it to start.

If young people realised what a fine life fishing was and what a prosperous living it could provide if they were prepared to work, many of them would take up fishing as a career. There are a number of young boys who have no hope of becoming academics and who would make very good fishermen. As I suggested the last time this Estimate was being discussed here, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should appoint a public relations officer to visit the secondary and vocational schools with the object of promoting fishing as a career.

On 24th August, 1970, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara published a report in The Irish Times which indicated that there was a target of £15 million for the fishing industry by 1974. How can we reach that in view of the small token Estimate which is before us here today? In that report the chairman of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara said that he expected to have 350 new boats by 1974. I am sure An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are doing the best they can but if the money is not provided they cannot make boats available. I am quite sure there has not been an increase of 50 trawlers in Irish coastal waters in the last 12 months. There may be 50 extra trawlers but they would be replacements; there would not be 50 new skippers.

The Parliamentary Secretary has not stated how much fish was imported during the past 12 months. Around the country it is being said that something in the region of £2,500,000 worth of fish was being imported. I do not know whether that figure is correct because I have not got the report of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would give us that information. If that is so, it is disgraceful that the Government should still be neglecting the fishing industry which is right at our doorstep. No investment is needed in it. All that is required is that people go out and catch the fish. Young people are there to fish if the necessary incentives are provided. In 1971 the Parliamentary Secretary said in his report:

Improvement works have been approved for Dingle, Cuas (Baile Mór Thoir) and Bealtra, County Kerry; Rossaveel, Cleggan, Emlaghmore, Roundstone, Furnais North, Coolacloy, Renvyle, Sruffaun, Sruthán Buí, Garafin and Glinsk, County Galway.

Those are only a few of a long list of projected improvements which the Parliamentary Secretary read out. Could he tell us how many of those works were actually carried out? I would say that not even 30 per cent have been carried out. I know that from my own area. What is the point of announcing that schemes have been approved when the money is not provided? It is not fair that the hopes of the fishermen in those localities should be raised by being told that their pier or harbour is to be improved when nothing is done about it. Is it that the Minister for Finance has not provided the necessary money to effect those improvements? These are questions that should be answered.

Recently the Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, got a report from the Shannon Free Airport Development Company and representatives of the different Gaeltacht areas stating that there was a future in fishing in those areas. I had hoped that the Minister would accept that report in principle and give the necessary incentives to fishermen and would-be fishermen, if the Government are serious about saving the West.

I understand An Bord Iascaigh Mhara is making an all-out effort to revise the insurance rates for trawlers. The insurance on a 75-foot trawler is between £600 and £700 a year. This is a colossal figure. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that trawlers cannot go out at all times during the year. It depends very much on the weather, but whether the trawler is tied to the pier or engaged in fishing, the fishermen still must pay the insurance which represents an overhead of something like £12 per week. If they have a breakdown and they are tied to the pier for two or three weeks, they still have to pay this insurance. I would ask An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to take a very close look at the insurance of these trawlers because the figure of £650 is much too high. They may be able to do something about it.

An Bórd Iascaigh Mhara should approach CIE for a special rate—like the Great Train Robbery—for the transport of fish from far away districts to Dublin. CIE fish transport costs are exorbitant. This should be a form of subsidy for the fisherman. CIE should give a special rate for the carriage of fish from Killybegs, Galway, Castletownbere, Dingle, Cahirciveen and Dungarvan to the Dublin market.

In 1964 an American survey team were invited to this country by the late Deputy Seán Lemass. They made a fantastic report on fisheries under a number of headings. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if the board accepted any of the recommendations of that survey team. Recommendation No. 7 recommended re-organising the fish market and establishing a State-supervised auction in Dublin. Everyone knows that there is a fish ring in the Dublin market. This ring should be smashed. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will let us know if An Bord Iascaigh Mhara intend to get back into the marketing of fish. It was a retrograde step by the board to opt out of the marketing of fish.

When we enter the EEC we will have to have better landing facilities. Foreigners will be able to land here. There is no question about that. These facilities must be provided under the Treaty of Rome. We are making no effort whatsoever to gear ourselves for the intensive competition which we will have to face in ten years time.

It is not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to go round meeting the fishermen and saying "Hello" to them. He will be judged on what he can accomplish. I know he has the ability. He should go to the Minister for Finance and say: "I cannot work on that budget." I hope he will come to the House at a later stage with a Supplementary Estimate for an injection of capital, which is long overdue, for An Bord Iascaigh Mhara or the fishing industry.

Mr. O'Connor

Looking back over the 12 months, roughly, that have passed since I spoke here on this Estimate I find it amazing that we are still without any projected fishery policy, particularly now that we are fast approaching entry into the EEC. About 12 months ago I gave the figures for the various countries of our size throughout Europe that are engaged in fishing. Norway was up to £200 million. Denmark was up to £100 million. The Faroe Islands with a population of a few thousand only had an export sale of £10 million worth of fish. I believe that their export figure reached £15 million in 1970.

It was not too much to have expected that a scheme would have been laid before us by now which would increase fishing extensively over the next ten years. We should be aiming at an export figure of £50 million worth of fish. There will be big opportunities in the Common Market. In the booklet which was laid before us it is stated:

On the marketing side, it is estimated that the enlarged Community will be a net importer of fish for human consumption. This will ensure a continuing firm demand for all types of fish. In 1970, Irish exports of fish and fishery products were worth £4.6 million of which £2.2 million was consigned to the EEC and some £1.9 million to the UK. The present EEC is already a promising market for our fishery exports and the improved conditions for trade following membership—abolition of quantitative restrictions and dismantlement of tariffs—should lead to a considerable expansion in these exports. In equipping itself to take full advantage of the market opportunities in the enlarged Community, the Irish fishing industry will be assisted through participating in the development and improvement aspects of the common fisheries policy. Community funds will be available to aid such projects as the improvement of fishing fleets, the modernisation of storage and processing facilities and fisheries research. Financial aid towards the cost of forming and running producer groups will also be available.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy give the source of the quotation?

Mr. O'Connor

The Association of Ireland to the European Communities laid by the Government before each House of the Oireachtas, January, 1972, pages 47 and 48.

Mr. Donegan

We might call it the coloured paper.

Mr. O'Connor

The point is that opportunities are facing us. We are informed that in the European Bank set up by the Community funds will be available, but at this stage we appear to have no projected scheme. Having spent seven years trying to get into the Common Market it should be available by now. We should reach for the figure of £50 million. Surely the money can be made available. An export target of £50 million would give employment to 20,000 extra people with a wage capacity of £18 million. This would be deployed mainly along our west coast where it is most needed. If that type of money were made available we would get further employment and we could solve our population problem and our emigration problem in those counties.

It is a target worth reaching for. We could reap the benefits of this vast field which lies off our coast which all too often fleets of other countries use to their advantage. I spent two years in Europe and I was a member of the fishing committee there. I know that with very little effort we could force half of the fleets which come in here to remain at home because when I was in Europe their catches were being reduced all the time and many trawlers were pulling out of fishing along the Irish coast. The more we fish our fishing grounds the less opportunity there is for foreigners to fish off our shores. The necessity for having protection vessels would not arise if more of our own trawlers were fishing off our coast. We have a natural advantage over many other countries in that we can land our fish quickly and have them processed. Fish deteriorate when they have to remain on boats for any length of time. If we had many of our own trawlers landing their fish and then having the fish put on ice immediately the quality would be up to European standards. We have several good processing plants and we should invite outside people who have the technique and the knowledge to set up more of those plants here.

Twelve months ago many boats which could fish around this country were tied up around our coasts. Skippers of many of those boats, if they can get the necessary help, are quite prepared to base themselves here and to fish around our coasts. If we aimed at this type of thing we would stop the marauders who are trying to get into our coastal waters to pick up the stocks of fish which they destroy far too often.

We are at the bottom of the list in regard to fishing compared with other European countries. We have practically 12 months fishing weather unlike some European countries, especially the northern countries which are very often icebound. They cannot get out of harbour for long periods during each winter. We have fishing grounds which are practically free of ice all during the winter so that our fishermen could fish all the time.

I cannot understand why the Department and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have not had some projected scheme for fishing before this. Our fishermen in Dingle and Cahirciveen, because of the policy of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, find the boats have to be tied up for repairs for long periods. There are no proper repair facilities available for those boats. Nothing has been done to standardise the engines in them. The fishermen find they have to wait for three, four and six months for a small part, which a person could carry in his pocket, to repair the engine of a fishing boat. This type of policy has put many of our fishermen out of business. Many young men decided not to go into fishing when they saw their fathers had to wait so long for repairs to their boats.

I referred to the case, on a previous Estimate, of a fisherman who tried to keep on fishing because he had several sons and he hoped that they would follow him into the business. He had a boat with an engine which was never capable of fishing off the Blaskets or the Skelligs. During a period of 18 months the engine had to be repaired several times. It was even repaired by engineers sent down by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. At one time it broke down between Dingle and Cahirciveen and had to be towed to Portmagee. A Bord Iascaigh Mhara engineer was sent down to repair it and it was found that the swabs which were used on the engine had been left inside it. The boat never left the pier after that. This man had repair bills for approximately £7,000. If there were standardised engines in certain ports this type of thing would not take place. There should be one spare set of parts for every type of boat so that when one needs repairs it will only have to be tied up for perhaps a day. Several times when I approached An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to fight the fishermen's case I was told if they got off their backsides they would not have a problem. This is the type of argument which is usually trotted out to us despite the fact that it is because of the policy of those people sitting in offices in Dublin that the fishermen cannot earn enough to keep themselves and their families.

Our fishing industry could be as great as it was in years gone by when fishermen went out in currachs and caught enough fish to maintain themselves and their families in reasonable comfort. Before we get into the EEC there is still time to do something about this industry but it will take a massive organisation which I do not believe is within An Bord Iascaigh Mhara's capabilities. The Government will have to try to get some body together to put a projected scheme into operation to save our fishing industry. Provision should be made for a vast number of boats and for personnel to man them. Personnel can be obtained if people see prospects for the future in this industry. Up to now there have been only small efforts made to improve the position.

There is a new boat coming to Cahirciveen next month which is costing nearly £90,000. For the past ten years we have been trying to get the necessary grants for improvement of the pier. Two years ago a start was supposed to be made. Borings were taken. Nothing has been done although the boat is due to be tied up there some time next month. At least, it is being launched in Donegal.

The same type of thing arises in Dingle. Grants were made available for the development of the harbour. There was to be some development along the old pier. Recently it was considered advisable to change the position. It was suggested that they should build a face at the east side and as a result of dredging behind the pier, at an extra cost of £30,000, four or five acres of ground could be made available to the fishermen while at the same time an equally good or better pier face could be provided and the necessary storage sheds could be accommodated on the reclaimed ground. This would make Dingle harbour a useful and viable proposition. Efforts were made to get the authorities to make the necessary change in the plan but so far no progress has been made. One would have thought that the engineers concerned would have seen the advantages of the suggested alteration of plan which, at reasonable extra cost, would have provided four or five acres of ground. It may not be the fault of the engineers concerned. They are restricted to a certain amount of money. The importance of big thinking in regard to planning for this very important industry is apparent.

I do hope that what we say here will be noted and that the necessary development will take place so that the wealth that is in the seas around us can be developed for the benefit of the country. This will give employment along the west coast, which is so badly needed. The money that can be earned from fisheries will benefit not only the west but the entire country.

Since I became a Member of the House I have made repeated claims for the development of the shell fish industry, particularly in Cromane. There is an industry there which could be worth £¼ million if there were proper propagation. There are plenty of sea mussels being carried out on the tide. We have never been able to get the necessary development of the harbour. This is one of the best mussel-breeding stations in Europe. With pollution in the Dutch fields arising from the discharge of the Rhone and other rivers, this type of development in Ireland can be all the more important. It would appear that we are taking our ease and awaiting the natural outcrop that has been developing. There are vast acres there for planting and plenty of seeds. On occasions I have seen 50 or 60 acres of seed mussels two and three feet high. I have seen the fishery people rigging up poles and attaching little bits of nets to catch the mussels. The poles and the nets and the mussels were all swept away on the tide and yet there were acres of seeds left. This is the kind of experimentation to which the money is devoted. With proper development of the seed beds the supply of mussels could be increased and our exports could be expanded.

Claims have been made for nationalisation of fresh water fishing. Any nationalisation that might be considered should not envisage interference with the rights of the estuarine fishermen. A big number of people earn their living by taking salmon by way of nets in the estuaries. I would be opposed to any attempt to remove those people from the fishing grounds. They have been engaged in this work down the years, as have their fathers before them. They have a right to live there just as a landowner has a right to his land. The use of nets is not allowed on fresh water now. Any suggestion of nationalisation aimed at the estuarine fishermen would meet with the maximum resistance because these people claim a God-given right. Any hotelier or other person who thinks that he can promote the business in a better way if the rights to the existing fishermen are cancelled should realise that this would not work. While I am in this House or while I am on the earth. I do not want to see that type of thing happening. Every man has the right to follow the way of life of his father before him. As I interpret it, there is no question of compensation. I could not allow this opportunity to pass without making this comment. I hope the rights of the estuarine fishermen will always be maintained.

My colleague in Kerry, Deputy Begley, referred to somebody or other, in some company. All too often people like this are hammered when they put money into the type of development that we are all looking for. It is often remarked that Irish people invest their money in every and any enterprise except local development. Anybody who puts money into boats—I do not know the people concerned——

Mr. Begley

Ah! you do. They are good friends of yours.

Mr. O'Connor

Maybe I do but I am not aware of a grant, I can assure the Deputy. Our aim is to get people who have money to put it into something in this country.

Mr. Begley

Not at the expense of the fishermen though.

Mr. O'Connor

I do not think it can be at the expense of the fishermen. We are looking for development and there are skippers and fishermen on the European coasts who have boats laid up and are prepared to come here. I would much prefer to see them here than to see trawlers come in and taking the fish away. I would prefer to see European skippers employing Irish personnel on the boats, as they are prepared to do, landing fish here for processing, where it would give employment, and flying the Irish flag in the process. This is a good thing. It is the quickest way we can develop. I hope we will get the money from the World Bank but if we do not there is no way in which we can get the vast investment in boats that we need. This would be one way of improving our fleet. Anybody in this country who is putting money into a boat and employing men on it is not interfering with the fishermen as such.

Mr. Begley

We will be hearing otherwise in a short time.

Mr. O'Connor

I am open to correction but my aim is to see more boats and more processing because the wealth is there and if we can land it in any way it will improve the general position of our people particularly along the west coast.

I should like to again impress on the Government and on the people who are directing our fisheries that they should try to bring in a development scheme. It must be over a ten-year period, it must be vast and we must have the money. If we succeed in bringing about this type of development our worries about fishermen and foreign trawlers coming in will be over because it will not be worth their while to come here if we are able to put a boat or two boats to each one of theirs. I hope a scheme will be devised so that we can reach a target of about £50 million in exports by 1982.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Fahey)

I should like to thank the Deputies who took part in this debate. The majority of the speeches were constructive and I found them helpful but we had, as usual, a minority which were anything but helpful. We had the usual statements and allegations made without any reference whatever to the facts of the situation.

Deputy Begley again made a charge of political influence with regard to moneys being made available from BIM to companies which he said would prove detrimental to the ordinary fisherman.

Mr. Begley

Time will tell.

Mr. Fahey

Of course he has admitted he was wrong in the charge he made because he named a person here who, he said, was a Fianna Fáil candidate on one occasion. He came into the House later and admitted that this was not so. I am glad he had to come in and admit that, but if it were not for the fact that I got him to name the individual I doubt if there would have been any withdrawal of the allegation.

Mr. Begley

I will give the Parliamentary Secretary three other names now.

Mr. Fahey

This is why I was most anxious to get the name because I detest these allegations of political influence without foundation. The Deputy made a similar charge in the debate on last year's Estimate in connection with other people in his constituency.

Mr. Begley

Yes, he is a director of the company now.

Mr. Fahey

Even if this person was a Fianna Fáil man why should he not be a director of a company and why should that company be excluded from getting State aid through An Bord Iascaigh Mhara? This is what BIM want. They want to get people to invest in the fishing industry.

Mr. Begley

The new Dermot Ryans.

Mr. Fahey

This is what they are there for. This is the development we want to bring about. Attacks such as this on companies are not helpful in bringing about this investment. Indeed, they could be detrimental as far as the expansion of the industry is concerned. As Deputy O'Connor rightly said, we want to bring more and more people into the fishing industry. We believe there is an opening there for them. We believe that the industry is capable of expansion and we want people to invest in it and provide employment in it. Deputy Begley asked me if I heard of such a company. It is not necessary for me to hear or know of such a company because this scheme of grants and loans is operated by BIM and it is entirely outside the influence of politics.

Mr. Begley

Who appoints them?

Mr. Fahey

I do not in any way interfere in the working of BIM on which the fishermen are well represented by people who are well able to look after the interests of fishermen.

Mr. Begley

You are joking.

Mr. Fahey

I should like to deal with the charge that by giving grants and loans to companies the small fisherman is being squeezed out. This is not so. Deputy Begley criticised the fact that a skipper has to put down a 5 per cent deposit on a boat costing £70,000, £80,000 or £90,000. Five per cent is a very reasonable amount to expect a person to put down. In what other branch of industry or activity in the country could a person put down only 5 per cent of the cost of the operation whether it is a factory, farm or anything else? It could not be done. The terms offered by BIM are the best that could be got anywhere in the world to aid fishermen. I have not heard of any scheme anywhere that is better than the one they operate and I am very satisfied with the results that have come about.

Deputy Begley mentioned the school at Greencastle. What I said in my Estimate speech last year was that work would commence within the present financial year. I am glad to be able to say that work has commenced.

Mr. Begley

You have cut the sod, I suppose.

Mr. Fahey

We sincerely hope the work will be completed, perhaps, within this financial year. Work would have commenced much earlier but for the fact that we had unforeseeable difficulties for which I was not in any way responsible. We have succeeded in getting work started.

I should like to refer to the progress that has been made in the industry. Some Deputies have said that we have made little or no progress over the years. I can only conclude that a Deputy who makes such a statement has not shown the interest in fisheries that he should have shown.

Mr. Begley

What Deputies?

Mr. Fahey

Deputy Begley mentioned it.

Mr. Begley

What about Deputy O'Connor and Deputy Blaney?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary, concluding.

Mr. Fahey

Deputy Blaney did not say there was little or no progress being made.

Mr. Begley

He cut you to pieces.

Mr. Fahey

He accepted the progress that was being made but he also said——

Mr. Begley

He said the money was not being invested in fisheries.

Mr. Fahey

He also said that sufficient money was not being put into the industry. One of the points often mentioned is the number of people engaged in the fishing industry today as compared with the numbers so engaged 90 or 100 years ago.

Mr. Begley

I said nothing about 90 years ago.

Mr. Fahey

This point was mentioned on the discussion on the Estimates last year.

Mr. Begley

Quote me correctly if you must.

Mr. Fahey

The numbers engaged in fishing do not show the whole picture. Reference has been made to the numbers of boats employed in the industry this year. In my introductory speech I mentioned that there was a net addition of 68 new and secondhand boats to the industry this year.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to reply without interruptions.

Mr. Fahey

The value of landings of sea fish and shellfish reached almost £4 million in 1970, which represents an increase of £1 million on the 1969 record figure. During 1970 a record export figure of almost £4.6 million was achieved, representing an increase of 29 per cent on the previous year's figure and practically doubling the value of exports achieved in 1967. If this is not progress I do not know what progress is.

Mr. Begley

What was imported?

Mr. Fahey

I have dealt with the number of additional boats which came into the fleet. I was asked about the value of landings. Landings of sea fish other than shellfish increased from 1,075,000 cwt. in 1969 to 1,325,000 cwt. in 1970—shellfish being excluded because that is recorded partly by weight and partly by number. The total value of landings, including shellfish, amounted to £2,404,000 in 1968 and increased by 25 per cent to £2,996,000 in 1969 and by a further 31 per cent to £3,911,000 in 1970. If that is not progress I do not know what one would call progress.

Mr. Begley

I think the Parliamentary Secretary is seasick.

Mr. Fahey

I am not, but I am spelling out the facts of the situation and showing the progress made. The progress is very satisfactory indeed. I come now to the question of common structural policy for the fishing industry.

Mr. E. Collins

Why did the Parliamentary Secretary not do that in his opening speech? He hardly referred at all to the common regulations for fisheries.

Mr. Fahey

We will come to that in a few moments. I went into great detail last year and a colleague of the Deputy stated that I was giving too much detail with regard to one particular aspect of the problem. With regard to the EEC and fishery regulations, I would like to tell the House that there are 60 different regulations. These regulations are increasing all the time. If I were to go into all the aspects of them in this House I would be here until tomorrow evening.

Mr. E. Collins

There are two main organisations, one on marketing and——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy spoke for a long time without interruption. The Parliamentary Secretary, without interruption.

Mr. Fahey

If the Deputy would listen I could enlighten him somewhat with regard to the prospects of the fishing industry. There has been much talk with regard to the EEC policy of common access of fishing vessels of EEC countries to each other's waters, right up to the coast. It has been said that what has been negotiated was a sell-out so far as the fisheries were concerned. What has been negotiated is anything but a sell-out.

I can imagine Deputies being worried about the common access. In the House over the last 12 months, since the common fisheries policy was adopted by the EEC countries, numerous questions were asked week after week in connection with this policy. These questions came at a very difficult time for our negotiating team. They came at a time when the EEC countries which had then, little more than a year ago, adopted the common fisheries policy which contained the common access clause were saying to our negotiators and other applicant countries that they were not prepared to discuss their common fisheries policy with us. Our negotiators, led by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dr. Hillery, brought about the position where the Community were willing to talk about that policy which had been adopted. They succeeded eventually by diligent negotiation and following many hours of talks, including two all-night sessions, in getting what we have at present. At that stage people both inside and outside this House were implying that our fisheries were being sold out in payment for the benefits to agriculture, that the Government had no interest in fisheries. Our negotiators showed their interest and successfully obtained for us what we have at the present time, which is a very good deal so far as our fisheries are concerned.

Mr. E. Collins

Why did the Norwegian Minister for Fisheries resign?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Fahey

We have got protection for over 90 per cent of the area from which the fish we catch come.

Mr. Begley

You are joking.

Mr. E. Collins

You sold out the herring-grounds.

Mr. Fahey

This is a tremendous achievement by our negotiating team. On behalf of the fishing industry I would like to pay a tribute in the House to Deputy Dr. Hillery and his team for what they have negotiated on our behalf. I can understand people who are anti-Common Market and see that we are facing difficulties in our fishing industry, asking, when they see what has been negotiated: "What is going to happen at the end of ten years?" and saying that the death knell of our fisheries has been postponed for only ten years. That is the argument. Of course, it will not be the death knell of our fisheries because speculation as to what will happen in ten years time is based on a faulty interpretation of what is now known as the "review clause".

It was said here that I was telling an untruth and that what was contained in the White Paper was untrue. This is not so. In order to clarify the position let me make clear now a number of points about the review clause. The agreement with the Communities specifies the arrangements on access which will apply in the initial ten-year period. These are not simply transitional arrangements which will automatically lapse at the end of this period. There is provision for a fair and open-minded review before the expiry of the ten-year period. Under this review clause we have agreed with the Community that, before the expiry of the ten-year period, the Commission shall present a report concerning the economic and social development of the coastal areas of the member States and the state of fish stocks. On the basis of that report and on the basis of the objectives of the common fisheries policy the council will examine the arrangements which will apply after the ten-year period.

In agreeing to this provision, we received the categorical assurance of the Community that one of the major factors which will have to be taken into account in the Commission's report will be the state of development of the inshore fishing industry in each member State. Moreover, we agreed that the council's examination will take particular account of the problems of those regions whose population, because of their special geographical situation, will continue to depend basically on inshore fishing. These considerations are of specific importance and relevance to our fishing interests. The arrangement to apply after the initial ten-year period will be agreed by the council, taking full account of all these factors, and these arrangements will certainly include the maintenance of special limits where the fishing situation in a member State and, particularly, the position of coastal populations depending mainly on fisheries and the state of development of the inshore fishing industry so demand.

We shall be a member of the council at this time, as will the other applicant countries, with a full voice and a vote in its deliberations. We shall certainly be in a position to ensure that our national interest in the fishery sector will be fully provided for by all the necessary arrangements, including the maintenance of special limits. The protocol to the Accession Treaty on the fisheries regime for Norway recognises explicitly that the derogations from the common access provisions may extend beyond 31st December, 1982. We have been assured by the Community that the terms of the Norwegian protocol do not in any way affect the agreement reached by us in regard to the access regime and the arrangements in our regard which could follow those in force until the end of 1982. I thought it necessary to make that point because of what some speakers have said here on the matter. I hope the position is now clear.

Mr. Keating

It is certainly not clear. It is exactly as I stated it to be.

Mr. Begley

Of course.

Mr. Keating

That is not a defence.

Mr. Fahey

We had a quotation from the Irish Skipper. It was referred to by Deputy Begley and, I think, by Deputy Kavanagh too. If we agree on nothing else—by “we” I mean Deputy Keating and myself—we are at least agreed that Norway has not got anything over and above what we got in the negotiations. I agree with Deputy Keating here because he is correct on this occasion.

Mr. E. Collins

Why did the Norwegian Minister resign?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Fahey

I should like——

Mr. E. Collins

I got no answer.

Mr. Begley

He has no answer to give.

Mr. Fahey

The Deputy does not expect me to give the reasons why the Norwegian Minister resigned. That is his business.

Mr. Keating

He gave the reasons himself.

Mr. Fahey

I should like now to take up another matter Deputy Keating mentioned in connection with the 1964 London convention. He argued that those arrangements should not be used in defending what we had obtained in our negotiations with the EEC countries.

Mr. E. Collins

Hear, hear.

Mr. Fahey

Deputy Keating alleges that the 1964 London convention was a bad one.

Mr. E. Collins

It was.

Mr. Fahey

He argues that it achieved nothing.

Mr. Keating

On a point of order. Would it be in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to quote the actual reference because I agree with some of what he attributes to me but I do not agree with other things that he attributes to me? It would be desirable, I think, if he tried to convey exactly what I said because I do not want to keep bobbing up and saying I did not say this but I did say that. Is it not in order to quote?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary may make his speech in his own way. There is nothing the Chair can do about his quoting or not quoting.

Mr. Desmond

Is he not supposed to give the reference?

Mr. Cunningham

He did not say he was quoting.

Mr. Fahey

I am not quoting.

Mr. Keating

I am seeking guidance.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary informs me he is not quoting in which case there is no reference to be given.

Mr. Desmond

He said Deputy Keating said.

An Ceann Comhairle

He is paraphrasing what the Deputy is supposed to have said.

Mr. Keating

Then he is doing so inaccurately.

Mr. Fahey

I am referring to what the Deputy said in connection with the 1964 London convention. I took it from what the Deputy said that he looked on it as a bad deal.

Mr. Keating

That far, I agree.

Mr. Fahey

We will take it from there. I think Deputy Begley agrees with Deputy Keating that it was a bad deal. I cannot go along with that because up to 1964 we had only a three-mile limit and, as a result of the London convention, another nine miles were added to the limit, making it a total of 12 miles. I think the people who negotiated that convention deserve our thanks.

Mr. Kavanagh

It is 12 miles in certain areas only.

Mr. Fahey

Any country which had habitually fished were allowed, under the convention, to continue to do so. That had to be agreed to by all the countries taking part.

Mr. E. Collins

Iceland did not take that stand.

Mr. Fahey

As far as we were concerned, we found that six countries had habitually fished within our 12-mile limit.

Mr. Begley

Within a mile of our coast.

Mr. Fahey

We do not allow them to fish within a mile.

Mr. E. Collins

They are doing it in Dunmore East.

Mr. Fahey

This was confined to certain species of fish. These countries were allowed to fish for certain species. As far as the west coast of Britain was concerned we were allowed to go on fishing there because we had habitually fished there. I regard the extension of the limit from three miles to 12 miles as a very good achievement. If we did not allow this fishing to go on where people had been doing it over a long period of time, it would have been impossible to secure such an agreement. I do not think we should belittle that here at this point in time, because it is true to say that since then we have benefited greatly from the extension of our limits to 12 miles and I say further that there is no reason why we should not continue to benefit.

In my opening remarks, I mentioned that under the EEC arrangements, we still have the same measure of safeguard as we have at present for the sea areas from which our fishermen land over 90 per cent of their catch. Even as regards the remaining areas from which we land less than 10 per cent, it must not be overlooked that a degree of access is already afforded to certain States under the 1964 convention which I have dealt with, but on the positive side, our fishermen will have greatly increased access to the six to 12 mile belt along most of the west coast of Britain which is readily within our present reach.

Concern has been expressed in this debate, I think, by Deputy Collins about the future of the herring industry. I think I am right in saying that he described what was achieved in Brussels, even in the last few moments, as a sell-out. I should like to say that this criticism bears no relation whatsoever to the facts. The true position is that the 12 miles exclusive fishery limit will still cover the whole of our northern and western coasts, giving the same protection for the north-west herring fishing as has existed heretofore.

Mr. E. Collins

Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me why the Irish fishing fleet has only 50 per cent of the herrings which come off our coasts during the season?

Mr. Fahey

I want to deal with the Dunmore herrings and I expect it is the Dunmore herrings he is referring to when he speaks of 50 per cent catch

Mr. E. Collins

I am quoting yourself on radio.

Mr. Fahey

As far as the 50 per cent in Dunmore East is concerned, the catching power of the Irish fleet, as I referred to earlier, is continuing to increase and from what was a minimal part of the total catch, we have now got to 50 per cent and we are on the up and up all the time. The trend is in the right direction and we sincerely hope it will continue in the right direction, and we have the facts to prove it. I want to get back to deal with the Dunmore herrings because the herring stock there has been mentioned on at least three or four occasions. This is the matter described by Deputy Collins as a sell-out in the EEC negotiations.

Mr. E. Collins

And the fishermen.

Mr. Fahey

The position, as I have stated already, is that six members of the EEC and four applicant countries, namely, Luxembourg, Italy, Denmark and Norway, enjoy fishing rights in the six to 12 miles belt on that part of the coast. Of these four countries, Luxembourg has no fishing fleet and Italy does not engage in herring fishing anywhere near our exclusive fishery limits. This leaves Denmark and Norway, and unless there is a complete collapse of the North Sea herring, I do not foresee any greater activity by Denmark or Norway in Dunmore East.

Mr. E. Collins

Or France?

Mr. Fahey

I have mentioned that France has the right at present to fish within the 12 mile limit. The Deputy seems to be completely confused about this.

Mr. E. Collins

Not a bit.

Mr. Fahey

Because he was confused about it when he spoke on it earlier in the debate. I find I have to go over this again and again for him, but the fishermen understand it clearly and, perhaps, he would have a chat with them down in Dunmore East about it, when they will tell him that the French have that right to fish in the outer six.

Mr. Desmond

When did the Parliamentary Secretary last go to Dunmore East and talk to the fishermen?

Mr. Fahey

Not so very long ago.

Mr. Desmond

Before or after the agreement?

Mr. Fahey

I have been there many times since the agreement.

Mr. Desmond

Before or after the agreement?

Mr. Fahey

The Deputy seems to forget that it is quite adjacent to me at home and I have a lot of friends in Dunmore East. I believe I have more friends and am more in touch than Deputy Collins because I am beginning to think that he is more out of touch than I am.

Mr. Desmond

Even more.

Mr. Fahey

A whole lot more. I am beginning to think I am paying too much attention to Dunmore East and I may be neglecting the fisheries throughout the remainder of the country. This is because it is so adjacent to me. Nevertheless, there is a matter in regard to Dunmore East which is worrying us a bit and it is not the one mentioned by Deputy Collins. It is the conservation of the herring stocks and this has been engaging the attention of my Department for many years and has nothing at all to do with our entry to the EEC. This has been a problem for quite some time. We are concerned about the survival of the stocks and I had discussions with the fishermen on this in Dunmore East and elsewhere many times. We have reached agreement——

Mr. E. Collins

How many times?

Mr. Fahey

Many times. If I were to count them on my fingers, I would have to take off my shoes and count them on my toes and I am not prepared to do that, so I cannot give the number.

Mr. E. Collins

How many times in the last 12 months?

Mr. Fahey

Many times.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps Deputies would cease interrupting. If the Deputy does not want to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, he has a remedy.

Mr. Desmond

It is all typed out— he is only reading it.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a pity that some of the interruptions are not typed out. They might be better than they are.

Mr. Fahey

What is happening now is that I wanted to give all the information I possibly could to Deputies, because they said I did not give it in my introductory speech, and I am now being told not to be too long at it. If I have to fall down halfway through it I will meet Deputy Collins in Dunmore East and we will chat it out with the fishermen.

I want to get back to the problem of Dunmore East because I know that even with his lack of understanding of the problems there, the Deputy will be very interested in regard to the conservation of stock because this is very important. We have reached agreement on it, as I said, with the fishermen to raise this matter at the NorthEast Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which is the international organisation charged with the function of devising measures, where necessary, for the conservation of fish stocks in this part of the world. The commission consists of 14 countries and a special study group of the commission met in Dublin in December, 1970 and reported on the position to the main body. The commission is now considering adopting powers to introduce measures for regulating the amount of total catch, or the amount of fishing effort, or any other measure we can find to deal with this problem, the problem of the conservation of this very important Dunmore East stock.

Mr. Begley

Tell us a few times more and we might understand you.

Mr. Fahey

I find this absolutely necessary. I am thankful to the Deputy for asking me to repeat it because I found the Deputy had not understood my introductory speech in regard to the progress made and I had to go over it again. Deputy Collins had difficulty in grasping the situation in regard to the French and I had to go over that again. Nevertheless, I am a very patient person——

Mr. Begley

You are pathetic.

Mr. Fahey

——and I would go to no end of trouble to enlighten Deputies as much as possible because they are all friends and I should not like to see them miss anything that would be of advantage to them. What I want to say again——

Mr. Begley

Say it.

Mr. Fahey

——in case the Deputies might say we are neglecting Dunmore East and not doing what we should do there——

Mr. Begley

Are you re-drawing Waterford constituency?

Mr. Fahey

There is no question of re-drawing that constituency. We shall leave you that. We are doing all right as we are.

Mr. E. Collins

You have no chance of putting me out, anyway.

Mr. Fahey

We are very interested in the future prosperity of the Dunmore East herring industry and at our instance it is engaging the attention of a much wider body than would be represented in an expanded EEC. During the debate the question was asked: Why did we not secure an exclusive 12-mile limit for the whole of our coastline? It will be appreciated, I hope, that we did our best to achieve this. I have already mentioned the arduous months of negotiation including two all-night sittings——

Mr. Begley

Who led the team?

Mr. Fahey

I know this is fully appreciated by those engaged in the fishing industry.

Mr. Begley

Repeat it again.

Mr. Fahey

In spite of all our efforts it was not possible to get the 12-mile limit all around our coast and, as is now known as a fact, none of the nine maritime countries engaged in the negotiations succeeded in securing an exclusive 12-mile limit for the whole of its coastline.

Mr. Begley

Norway? Norway did.

Mr. Fahey

We did better than most. I have no hesitation in saying, and I repeat this again——

Mr. Corish

The Parliamentary Secretary is not supposed to repeat himself.

Mr. Fahey

A good thing cannot be said often enough.

Mr. Corish

Anything the Parliamentary Secretary will say about fishing will not be good.

Mr. Fahey

I find it very hard to get points home here. Deputies seem to find it hard to understand. There is something lacking: perhaps it is in myself. What has been negotiated for the Irish fishing industry is well worth while and something which, as I said already, is appreciated and will be appreciated by the fishing industry. I should like to refer again to the Irish Skipper as regards what it contained in regard to Norway. This was mentioned by Deputy Begley. Deputy Keating and I agree that they have gained nothing more than we have. What faces us in regard to the EEC is a very important question. If we are outside the EEC the industry which will suffer most, I would say, is fisheries. There is no future for our fisheries outside the EEC. They would become a very doubtful proposition because 90 per cent of our fish exports go to Britain and the EEC countries. With Britain in, the levies, tariffs and restrictions that now apply to us in our exports to the EEC countries would then apply to our exports to Britain. This would put us in a very difficult position.

An enlarged EEC with Norway and Denmark in, would be an entirely different proposition as far as we are concerned. It could well be, in these circumstances, that the EEC would become self-sufficient in regard to the species of fish we are interested in exporting to them. We must consider this because this is the alternative the fishing industry would face. Therefore, I say that a magazine like the Irish Skipper which is the only magazine of which I know circulating among fishermen in this country——

Mr. Begley

They read an odd one.

Mr. Fahey

It is a monthly publication and I am told it has a very wide circulation among fishermen. Such a magazine, therefore, carries great responsibility in regard to what is published in it.

Mr. Kavanagh

There is another magazine, not from this country, but circulating in fishing circles and it had the same comment to make.

Mr. Fahey

I am dealing only with the magazine produced in Ireland and I want to make those responsible for its publication aware of their responsibilities. I ask them to ascertain the facts before they produce headings like that because even in this House they succeeded in misleading Deputy Begley. I do not know about Deputy Kavanagh but evidently Deputy Keating was not taken in by it. He does not agree.

Mr. Kavanagh

It is a pity the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister for Foreign Affairs did not read it before going to Brussels.

Mr. Fahey

It is much more likely the fishermen would be taken in by a publication looked upon as their own magazine and printed for them.

Mr. Kavanagh

It reflects their views and feelings.

Mr. Fahey

I do not believe this is so because a magazine like this can mould their views and feelings. It can get them to think along a particular line and if it does succeed in making them think along the wrong lines we must hold it responsible. I have the responsibility, which I do not take lightly, of refuting this and saying that it bears no relation to the facts. I ask all concerned with the future of the fishing industry to refrain from publishing articles like this.

I must say I got co-operation in the House in the past 12 months when some Deputies, as I have already mentioned, were asking questions regarding the common access clause at a very difficult time for our negotiators and those responsible in Fisheries. They were asking, as I said already——

Mr. Begley

On a point of order, is it permissible for the Parliamentary Secretary to say again what he has already said five times? Surely those in this House have some intelligence and do not require to have it repeated for the sixth time?

Mr. Fahey

I am referring to the co-operation I got in this House and in order to do so I am going back to the type of question that was asked, in order to illustrate my point. Those were questions in regard to the common access clause and I may say that if our negotiating team had not been successful in preventing common access from coming about it would have a detrimental effect on our fishing industry. At that time I asked some Deputies not to do anything that would break the confidence of those in the fishing industry because confidence was necessary if we were to continue building up the industry. I must acknowledge that I got that co-operation from certain Deputies.

Mr. Corish

Deputy Paddy Burke, I suppose.

Mr. Fahey

As a matter of fact, they were on the Opposition benches. This co-operation was necessary and it came from Deputies who realised their responsibility. I hope, therefore, that a magazine such as the Irish Skipper will realise its responsibilities. The confidence of the fishermen was not undermined by anything that happened in the past 12 months. Perhaps that was because of the co-operation we sought and which was forthcoming. People were helpful and we had tremendous expansion in the past 12 months in the fishing industry. There is evidence, if any were needed, of the confidence of the fishermen in their own industry. They are the people who best know the industry and they had to put their hands in their pockets. They are the ones who would have to borrow to invest in a new boat. The expansion that we had in the number of boats which have comprised our fishing fleet during the past 12 months has been very gratifying and, better still, the amount of investment in the purchase of new and more up-to-date gear has been enormous. Such investment is an indication of the confidence of the people involved in the industry.

Mr. Begley

It is wrong that officials should be used for the purpose of passing notes to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Andrews)

I handed the Parliamentary Secretary a note. What are the Deputies talking about?

Mr. Begley

The officials are being used in this way.

Mr. Andrews

That is an untruth.

Mr. Begley

I saw Deputy Browne handing a note to the officials who handed it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and who in turn, handed it to Deputy Fahey.

Mr. S. Browne

It appears that I am being accused wrongly. I went down to discuss a problem with the officials. This had nothing to do with the Parliamentary Secretary. Surely I am entitled to discuss a problem with the officials.

Mr. Begley

Why was the note handed to the Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. S. Browne

Fine Gael members have no hesitation in crossing the floor to discuss problems with officials when they so wish.

Mr. Fahey

I want to point out that the message I got——

Mr. Creed

Was to sit down.

Mr. Fahey

The Deputies seem to be mistaken with regard to the note was given.

Mr. Begley

Tear it up.

Mr. Fahey

I am tearing this note up because it relates to a personal matter. While I am engaged here in trying to enlighten Deputies and to make them aware of the position within the fishing industry it is my opinion that if there is a personal note to be handed to me, the people concerned are entitled to have that done and I thank them for doing it now. If I had not got the message——

Mr. Begley

You would have been in trouble.

Mr. Andrews

On a point of order, there has been an accusation that in some way we were passing notes to officials. These people are not in a position to defend themselves. In the circumstances Deputy Begley should have the decency to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Begley

I repeat it.

Mr. Andrews

The Deputy should—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary may not make a speech.

Mr. Andrews

I am not making a speech but pointing out——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the trouble. Everybody wants to point out something. The Parliamentary Secretary should be allowed to conclude. Might I add for the information of Deputy Begley that the officials are in this House for the purpose of passing notes and information to Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Cunningham)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Begley

The point is that the officials got the note from another Deputy.

Mr. Fahey

I have been accused on two or three occasions during the debate of not giving enough detail relating to the fishing industry. I would point out that my introductory speech was rather lengthy. It was not a short one by any means.

Mr. Enright

A medium-sized one.

Mr. Fahey

More than that.

Mr. Coogan

It was a "whale" of a one.

Mr. Fahey

Surely the time for going into detail is now while I am replying because at this stage the various points have been put forward by the Deputies who have spoken. Having listened to those points I should be entitled to reply. I regret that I cannot reply in a matter of minutes as it takes some time to cover all the different matters that were raised.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is obvious now that the Parliamentary Secretary was told to continue until 10.30 p.m.

Mr. Fahey

Last year I was accused by a Fine Gael Deputy of going into too great detail in my introductory speech. This year I avoided that and decided to go into detail in my winding-up speech.

Mr. Corish

I would say that Lord Kilbracken is about in Rathnew now.

Mr. Fahey

I hope there is not as much ice on the road as when the Deputy and I travelled it together. Deputy Collins expressed anxiety about the regulations within the EEC. At present there are 60 such regulations.

Mr. Corish

If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to read all of them I, for one, am getting out of here although I appreciate that he has a job to do.

Mr. Fahey

I am sorry that the Deputy will not be here to hear them. They are increasing and there might well be 70 by now. Some queries have been raised regarding the two main regulations. Apart from the matter of access, which I think I have dealt with fully, it was argued that the provisions in the EEC regulations about the freedom of vessels of all member states to land fish for sale here and to process it would cause a breakdown of the market for Irish fishermen. I think Deputy Collins made this point. I have denied those allegations before. It is a different matter to say that we will not have power to prevent their landing fish here. Deputy Begley mentioned the provision of facilities for foreign fishermen. There is no obligation on us under EEC regulations to provide facilities for foreign fishermen to land here.

Mr. Tully

We will have to provide the same facilities for them as we provide for Irish fishermen.

Mr. Fahey

There is nothing to prevent them availing of the facilities we have provided.

Mr. Tully

That is the same thing.

Mr. Fahey

One aspect that appears to trouble some Deputies is the landing of fish by foreign vessels. I should like to explain the position in as much detail as I can. The idea behind the marketing concept in the EEC is that there is a single large market, not a series of different markets. It is obvious that some Deputies did not fully realise what this regulation was about and I should like to explain it to them. The responsibility for organising the marketing of one country's catch wherever it is landed will continue to rest on the producers' organisation in that country. If in times of glut prices of the main species should fall to the withdrawal price level, the fishermen's organisation is required to withdraw the fish from the market and to bear a share of the cost of withdrawal.

Mr. E. Collins

What percentage will they have to bear?

Mr. Fahey

That detail will have to be worked out. If the market guide prices are realistic the need to operate the withdrawal mechanism should not occur except in rare cases. I want to make this point clear so that Deputy Collins can inform the fishermen in Dunmore East and around the coast. If the prices are good on the continent there will be no incentive for any continental fishermen to land fish in Ireland because this would mean a loss for him. There should be no possibility anywhere in the Community of fish being sold on the market at less than the withdrawal price, even in the most adverse circumstances. If this should not prove to be the case the entire marketing procedures would break down and a new system would have to be devised.

During the five-year transition period, any fish landed here by vessels of other member countries will be subject to an import duty commencing at the level of the present Common Market customs tariffs in operation against non-member countries and reducing each year during the five-year period. This should dispel any fears Deputies might have with regard to marketing arrangements.

Mr. E. Collins

It is possible that trawlers could land second-grade fish and cause a glut on the market.

Mr. Fahey

No, it is not possible. In addition, there will be amounts to be levied or paid based on the difference between the guide prices here and in the Community until, by the end of the transition period, the guide prices will be gradually adjusted to the same level. No injury to our fishermen could arise if unsold fish were landed here from vessels of other member states of the Community for transport to European markets where a first sale would take place. This operation would be merely a transport matter, not a marketing one. Our transport industry would benefit from such extra business. I hope this has allayed the doubts of the Deputies with regard to the marketing regulations. I should not like to think that they felt uneasy about this. Because of the future prospects for this industry in the EEC it is important that all Deputies should know what is involved.

Mr. Begley

The Parliamentary Secretary is getting a little pale.

Mr. Fahey

Perhaps it is because I have had to go into this matter in such great detail——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

It would have been better if I had been allowed to go into detail on these matters in my introductory speech but last year my speech was criticised because it was stated it contained too much detail.

Mr. Desmond

On a point of order, is it not a gross abuse of the privilege of this House that the Parliamentary Secretary in replying to a debate, when, presumably, he should deal with matters raised by Deputies, should waffle on under the instructions of his Whip——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Desmond

——in order to prevent a vote being taken? It is an appalling waste of the taxpayers' money and gross abuse of the privilege of this House. It is a disgraceful performance.

Mr. Fahey

I have an important matter to deal with——

Mr. Desmond

The Parliamentary Secretary is behaving in a disgraceful way. He could deal with the matters——

Mr. Fahey

The Deputy may consider that a debate on the fishing industry is a waste of time and of public money but I do not agree with him. I consider it is money well spent to debate this important industry. I am sure that the Deputy's constituents would not agree with him.

Mr. Desmond

My constituents would be revolted by what we have seen tonight. Repetition all night long. It is a disgraceful performance.

Mr. Fahey

The question was also raised as to whether fish withdrawn from the market under the withdrawal mechanism covered by the regulations could be frozen and stored for subsequent export. Some Deputy raised this matter.

Mr. L'Estrange

Which Deputy?

Mr. Fahey

Deputy Collins. The answer is that the fish withdrawn from the market must be disposed of only for the following purposes as set out in one of the subsidiary marketing regulations:

(1) Free distribution of fish in the natural state to benevolent organisations or to charitable foundations or to people who have a right to receive public assistance because of insufficient means of subsistence;

(2) To use fresh or preserved for animal feeding;

Deputy Collins will not like that one.

(3) Use after processing into fish meal for animal feeding;

(4) Use for purposes other than food.

I hope the Deputy who raised that question is satisfied and that it is some information to other Deputies as well.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

I wish Deputies would stop interrupting because I have a great deal of material to get through. I come to the common customs tariff in operation in the EEC against imports of fish from third countries.

Mr. Begley

We heard that before

Mr. Fahey

You did not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies should allow the Parliamentary Secretary to proceed.

Mr. Power

Éistigí, éistigí.

Mr. Fahey

Again I want to point out that Deputies are confused; they do not appear to be listening. If Deputy Begley was listening, he would know I had not said this before. This question of the common customs tariff is very important no matter what Deputies may think. This matter was referred to in the debate. We have already imposed the common customs tariff by order made by the Government on 23rd December, 1971. Heretofore there was no import duty on fresh, chilled or frozen fish other than a small duty on fish fillets and such like. The adoption of the new duty was necessary because we shall have to abandon our quantitative restrictions on imports when the EEC fisheries regulations become applicable to us from 1st February, 1973, one month after we become members of the EEC.

Mr. Kavanagh

If we become members.

Mr. Fahey

I know Deputy Kavanagh has the interest of the fishing industry at heart and that he will ensure that fisheries will be at no loss by staying out of the EEC. He knows as well as I do that the fishing industry deserves better than getting a bad deal like that.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

Deputy Desmond does not appear to be interested in fishing or in the important information I am giving. He did suggest that BIM should expand its services immediately to enable it to play a bigger part in the marketing of fish and operate the withdrawal mechanism to which I have already referred and which comes into play when there is a glut of fish and when fish prices drop. It must be remembered at one time BIM was in on the marketing of fish, that this was part and parcel of the functions of BIM.

Mr. Coogan

We know all that.

Mr. Fahey

Evidently some Deputies were not aware of it, because they suggested bringing BIM back into the marketing process.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputies please stop interrupting?

Mr. Fahey

If the Deputy from Galway knew they were not involved in the marketing of fish he should have enlightened others in the House so that I would be relieved of the job I am trying to do now. This is a very laborious task but I have to go through with it because I feel it my duty that Deputies should be as well informed as I can possibly make them in regard to the future of fisheries.

Mr. Coogan

The Parliamentary Secretary would not know a mackerel from a Johnny Dory.

Mr. Fahey

Deputies were advocating that BIM go into the marketing of fish, but they have been doing that.

Mr. Desmond

On a point of order, is it in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to repeat himself time and time again in the past ten minutes? It is grossly disorderly, in my opinion.

Mr. Begley

I move that the question be now put.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not accepting such a motion.

Mr. Fahey

I want to clarify the position about BIM because it was at the request of the fishermen themselves that BIM withdrew from the marketing of fish.

Mr. Desmond

Would the Parliamentary Secretary get on with it?

Mr. Fahey

Did the Deputy know that?

Mr. Desmond

It is no wonder the country is the way it is when we have the like of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Fahey

The Deputy asked me the question.

Mr. Desmond

The Parliamentary Secretary could have answered it in two minutes flat instead of waffling on.

Mr. Fahey

What is the answer?

Mr. Desmond

I was asking if BIM would be brought into the full marketing area.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have this series of questions and answers. The Parliamentary Secretary is replying.

Mr. Fahey

BIM were in the marketing of fish but, at the request of the fishermen themselves, they withdrew from the market. With the setting up of the co-operatives around the countryside—and there are 17 registered co-ops at the moment—BIM undertook to assist the fishermen in handling and selling their own produce. Now when they have got the industry on its feet, they have handed over the selling to fishery people themselves, and I maintain that that was the right thing to do. No one can look after their produce like the people themselves, and in this case the people are the fishermen. They are glad to have the assistance of BIM which is readily available to them. I am glad that is the position. I am glad BIM are in close touch with the fishermen. I am satisfied that they are doing a very good job. We have no intention of turning back the clock. It is progress we want to make.

Mr. Enright

Up to 10.30.

Mr. Fahey

Even if we wanted to turn back the clock, even if we wanted to hand back the marketing to BIM, as it was in the sixties, the EEC marketing regulations are based on the first sale of fish by the fishermen themselves or by their own voluntary organisations on their behalf. We could not turn back the clock. The withdrawal mechanism must be operated by producers' organisations and these organisations must be established on the producers' own initiative. This bears out what I have been saying. The producers are the best people to handle their own product. They will handle it in the best interests of themselves and the consumers.

It would not be acceptable for the State or a semi-State body to perform the function of withdrawing fish from the market except in the case of sardines and anchovies where it was not feasible for various local reasons to establish producers' organisations. We are not interested in the catching of the sardines. So far as the species we do catch are concerned, the fishermen must come together to form their own producers' organisation if they are to benefit from the EEC price support system. The fishermen will have all the advice and guidance we can give them in setting up these organisations or in adapting existing organisations. We are willing and anxious to give this assistance. I know it will be appreciated by the people involved in the fishing industry.

I should like to refer to Article 4 (1) of the EEC main marketing regulations. Deputies do not appear to be paying the attention they should pay to such an important matter as this. It was suggested that BIM should operate the inspection scheme to determine whether fish offered for sale comply with the common marketing standards. The grading of fish must be done by experts appointed by the producers or their organisations under Article 4 (1) of the EEC main marketing regulations. The inspection to see that this work is accurately carried out must be performed by, to quote the regulation, member states. We interpret this to mean in our case my Department.

Mr. L'Estrange

You are not a member state.

Mr. Fahey

Deputy L'Estrange now comes in and asks a question.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Parliamentary Secretary's teacher may be at fault.

Mr. Fahey

He puts me in the terrible position of having to spell it out again. I should hate to feel that any Deputy, even Deputy L'Estrange, is not fully aware of the position. When I said "member state" I was referring to the regulation which will apply to us when we become a member.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies must cease interrupting.

Mr. Fahey

I do not think——

Mr. L'Estrange

I agree with you there.

Mr. Fahey

——that I could hand over that function to a semi-State body. A check on a supervisory function such as this would more appropriately fall to be performed by my Department.

A comment was made with regard to Article 7 (1) of the main marketing regulations. In fairness to myself, Deputy Collins complained that I did not go into the regulations in detail and now, when I am trying to do so, I am getting very scant attention from the Deputy.

Mr. E. Collins

I am here listening to the Parliamentary Secretary. I had to tell him first what was in the regulations.

Mr. Fahey

I doubt if the Deputy knew they existed.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies should allow the Parliamentary Secretary to reply without interruptions.

Mr. E. Collins

He is not replying. He is repeating what I said.

Mr. Fahey

These are very important regulations which will affect us when we become a member of the EEC. It was suggested that BIM should operate the inspection scheme to determine whether fish offered for sale comply with the common marketing standards.

Mr. E. Collins

What regulation says that?

Mr. Fahey

Regulation 4 (1). I did not think the Deputy understood it completely.

Mr. E. Collins

Where?

Mr. Fahey

Article 4 (1) of the main regulations.

Mr. E. Collins

There is nothing in any of the regulations that says BIM should operate it.

Mr. Fahey

Who said that BIM should operate it?

Mr. E. Collins

You did.

Mr. Fahey

It was suggested here that BIM should come into the marketing of fish and play their part. I am pointing out that under Article 4 (1) of the main regulations this is not possible for BIM.

Mr. Desmond

Who said so?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have a debate by way of question and answer.

Mr. Begley

What we are having is a farce.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary should address the Chair and not individuals in the House. Interruptions must cease.

Mr. Fahey

I was beginning to wonder whether I would have to go over it all again for Deputy Desmond. It has been the thinking of the Community——

Mr. Begley

Which one is that?

Mr. Fahey

Article 7 (1)—that species of fish other than those covered by annex 1A and C were unlikely to cause market disturbance. No doubt if at any time a problem in relation to those other species should arise, such species could if necessary be added to the list for which compulsory indemnity applies. The varieties covered by the compulsory indemnity include the main varieties with which we are concerned.

On the broader front, an attack was made to the effect that we have no national policy on fisheries. I want to point out that there is a national policy which was set out in the White Paper entitled Programme of Sea Fisheries Development—I am sure Deputies have heard of it—which was laid by the Government before each House of the Oireachtas in April, 1962.

Mr. L'Estrange

That would be out of date now.

Mr. Desmond

Ten years ago.

Mr. Davern

Is it fair that my colleague should be continuously interrupted in this most important debate?

Mr. L'Estrange

The Deputy should listen to him instead of writing a letter. It is gross discourtesy to the Parliamentary Secretary for the Deputy to be writing a letter.

Mr. Davern

Somebody has to keep the constituency going.

Mr. Fahey

I have referred to the Government's White Paper of 1962 which was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputies do not wish to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary they have a remedy.

Mr. L'Estrange

This is as good as Maureen Potter.

Mr. Fahey

It was said here that very little progress has been made since that White Paper was adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I have already referred to the tremendous progress that has been made. I mentioned the doubling of our catching power, the doubling of the value of the fish and the progress that has been made by the addition of trawlers to our fleet. I have gone through all that this evening and yet I have heard somebody say that the White Paper of 1962 did not produce any results. I find it very hard to get the message across to the Deputies.

Mr. L'Estrange

Why not bring out another White Paper?

Mr. Fahey

I said already that I might be at fault in that I am not putting it clearly enough because there is something wrong some place. The Deputies do not seem to understand what I am saying.

Mr. L. Belton

It is the fault of your predecessor.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Parliamentary Secretary did not reply to Deputy Blaney.

Mr. Fahey

I want to refer to the Government's policy with regard to the development and the expansion of the fishing industry. All our actions in regard to fisheries over the past ten years since the White Paper to which I have referred was issued have been geared to this main objective. We will continue to promote this policy. One aspect of sea fishing policy that was advocated by a number of Deputies was that we should have a deep sea fleet. Deputy Collins was interested in this. The Deputies who referred to this did not elaborate on what precisely they had in mind. It is appropriate that I should quote from a reply I gave to the House in answer to a question on this subject on 17th June, 1971. The reply was as follows:

Sea fishing in this country has developed on traditional lines based on inshore fishing, but for a number of years past, the addition to the fleet of larger fishing vessels, ranging in size up to 90 feet long and equipped with the most modern electronic and other fishing aids, has been encouraged by State grant and loan incentives. With these vessels it will be feasible not only to fish intensively as hitherto inside our own exclusive fishery limits but also, if necessary, to exploit the fish stocks on the Continental Shelf outside those limits. If the Deputy's reference to deep water fishing relates to fishing by much larger vessels in distant waters, I should say that there are no plans for immediate expansion in this direction, as the economics of the operation would seem to be relatively unattractive.

Mr. Coogan

A good time to send out Christmas cards again.

Mr. Fahey

In order to enlighten the Deputies further I should add, however, that the whole subject of the relative merits of inshore and deep sea fishing is watched from time to time in case circumstances should change and thus warrant a change of policy. We are keeping this constantly under review. At all times the best interests of our fishing industry and the welfare of our fishermen will be served and we will not adopt what would be for us a new fishing system merely because other countries not so well endowed with inshore fishing as we are have been forced by circumstances to practise fishing far distant from their landing places and markets. I should like to elaborate on this a little further.

Mr. L'Estrange

Has the Parliamentary Secretary a dictionary?

Mr. Fahey

No, but if the Deputy would listen I might be able to get across to him and to the other Deputies the truth about this matter. Some Deputies simply ask why we did not go in for the long distance fishing, deep sea fishing, in other words. You would have to ask yourself why should we do this because we have right around our shores this very valuable resource which I might say we have never fully exploited. We are moving a long way towards it but until we have fully exploited this resource around our shores why should we travel off to some distant waters to catch fish of which we have a plentiful supply here at home? The Deputies who follow this line of thinking say that the Danes, the Norwegians, the Poles and the French have long distance fleets. Some Deputies mentioned the catching power of Norway and other countries. They have to come almost half way across the world to fish in the waters outside our fishing limits because, as somebody said, the waters around the coast of the countries mentioned do not contain the same valuable fish stocks as the waters around our coasts. Why, therefore, should we go chasing off to waters which have not got the valuable stocks we have here? Our policy is, then, to continue to develop this short distance fishing, this inshore fishing. This is what our fishermen are seeking. They are not asking for the bigger trawlers for long distance fishing. The fishermen, who are the best judges of their own interests and of their own industry, know what they want.

Deputy Taylor complained about the lack of fish processing facilities in County Clare. At least we have gone from Kerry to Clare. I should like to say that the provision of State grants for fish processing facilities is dealt with by the Industrial Development Authority and no worthwhile project is turned down. My Department are always willing to support any viable projects. It must be borne in mind, however, that the initiative for any project is a matter for private enterprise in the first instance. The State cannot force private enterprise to set up processing factories in any particular areas. Generous State grants are available to them to encourage investment, particularly in the western counties such as County Clare. I assure Deputy Taylor that if he finds any private investors who are willing to go into this type of processing in that county we will give them all the assistance we possibly can and I know the IDA will look on it favourably if it is a viable project.

Mr. Clinton

Has the Parliamentary Secretary any idea where the shortfall is in the processing industry, because this would be a help?

Mr. Fahey

Deputies seem to be anxious that I should deal only with all the points raised during the debate. It would be unfair to Deputies who raised matters during the debate to deal with the question now asked by the Deputy. Some other time when I have more time available to me I will deal with the Deputy's question. There are Deputies here since early tonight waiting for answers and for information with regard to aspects of the fishing industry they are interested in. In regard to Deputy Taylor's complaint about processing facilities for County Clare, I think I have made the position perfectly clear to him.

Deputy Begley mentioned fishery harbours. The funny thing is that he stated here last year that I read out a lot of harbours around our coasts which we proposed to develop and which had been inspected and were about to be inspected by our survey team. The funny thing about it is that a colleague of his, in the debate last year, said it was ridiculous going into all those places with the queer names, which he himself said he found difficulty in pronouncing—indeed, I had great trouble in my introductory speech in reading 25 or 26 place names. When a colleague of Deputy Begley objected to this, I decided that it was better to omit such detail on this occasion, so as not to hurt anybody's feelings.

That does not mean that the development of the harbours has stopped, that it is not progressing. It is progressing.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. L'Estrange

What about Deputy Blaney's interest in it?

Mr. Coogan

What about Rossaveel?

Mr. Fahey

What about Rossaveel?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputies cease interrupting?

Mr. Coogan

There is nothing about Rossaveel.

Mr. Fahey

Rossaveel has been mentioned. That brings something to my mind which, perhaps, I should clarify.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputies cease interrupting?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

I want to deal with this very important matter that has come up with regard to the development of our fishery harbours. I think it was Deputy Begley who said that the Government were not putting the money into it that they should put into it. I want to point out that the Government are providing more money each year than is being spent on harbours. It is not possible to spend all this money quickly in a short period of time. It is not possible to spend money in that manner.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

One moment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputies allow the Parliamentary Secretary to reply?

Mr. Fahey

Seeing that the Deputies do not understand my remark or, if they understand it, are certainly misinterpreting it, I want to say that the fact that more money is being provided by the Government than we are able to spend arises in many ways. There are only certain times in the year when work can be carried out on development of harbours. During wet weather it is not possible to carry out the work. There is another cause of delay. Deputy Coogan mentioned Rossaveel. This is typical of what happens in many harbour developments. A development may be ready to take place; the scheme has been designed by the OPW; the money has been provided and then the local people say, as they have said in Rossaveel, that they are not satisfied with what we were doing and with the way it was being done by the Board of Works and wanted changes made. This happened specifically in the case of Rossaveel.

Mr. Coogan

They told you that years ago and you took no notice.

Mr. Fahey

They asked me to send an engineer from the Board of Works to discuss their requirements. This happens in many other instances also. I arranged that an officer would go down. A new scheme had to be drawn up. There had to be new plans. A whole lot of work had to be carried out which could not be done overnight. It is not for the want of finance. These are the types of problem that we come up against.

Mr. Coogan

On a point of order, will the Parliamentary Secretary explain why the night before the last election——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Coogan

I call it a point of order. You had a scheme ready and Deputy Molloy will tell you that he is the man who handed it out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not a point of order and, therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary need not reply to it.

Mr. Fahey

I have just told the Deputy that we had the scheme ready.

Mr. Coogan

Kathleen Mavourneen —it may be for years and it may be forever.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It seems to the Chair as if we are forgetting the dignity of Parliament.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary has been forgetting it for the last two hours.

Mr. Fahey

I have very important matters to deal with arising out of the debate. I want to get to another point, still on the subject of the fishery harbours, because earlier tonight some Deputies on the opposite side referred to the criticism by Deputy Blayney here today and asked me why I did not deal with that. The Deputies will not let me deal with it.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

Deputy Blaney raised in particular the question of the developments in Moville and said that the scheme as recommended by the survey team had been altered against the wishes of the local fishermen and that the revised scheme is not in their interests.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

I want to deal with it if I will be permitted to do so. I want to say that this claim is simply incorrect.

Mr. L'Estrange

Deputy Blaney tells the truth in this House. Let that be said.

Mr. Begley

Then Deputy Blaney is telling lies?

Mr. Fahey

Do you say that?

Mr. Begley

The Parliamentary Secretary said that he was not telling the truth.

Mr. Fahey

There is a vast difference. I shall now give the facts of the case, just for the record, in order to avoid any more woolly thinking in connection with the matter. The facts are that the detailed scheme which was prepared in the Office of Public Works and which would implement fully the recommendations that had been made by the survey team in February, 1969, was approved and submitted by my Department to Donegal County Council in July, 1970, for acceptance by them and by the Harbour Commissioners in the normal manner. Before it could be cleared locally between the county council and the Harbour Commissioners the fishermen made representations to me at a meeting that I had with them in Moville on 8th October, 1970—proof again that I get around to all parts of the country and to the fishermen.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

Let me continue. At that meeting the fishermen asked me— I should like to emphasise this—to make a number of changes in the scheme already approved. They also asked that some additional work be included. As a result of this request, the Office of Public Works made a complete resurvey of the harbour and designed a new scheme. These are the things that I mentioned earlier that happen. I am now giving the facts with regard to Moville. This new scheme was designed specifically to meet the fishermen's wishes. The scheme was put to the fishermen at a meeting held in Moville on 8th June, 1971, and they accepted it unanimously.

Mr. Coogan

What was the estimate?

Mr. Fahey

The new scheme received official approval in my Department and the Department of Finance later the same month, evidence of how quickly we do things. That was in June, 1971.

Mr. L'Estrange

Deputy Blaney approved them in June 1968.

Mr. Fahey

My Department put this revised scheme to the Donegal County Council on 12th July, 1971, and when some outstanding matters between the council and the harbour authority, such as future maintenance of the work, are cleared up the scheme can go ahead. It is estimated that it will cost £61,000. Happy?

Mr. L'Estrange

It was to cost £72,000 in 1968.

Mr. Fahey

The Deputy is mixed up. This is £3,000 more than the original scheme would have cost.

Mr. Clinton

Where did you find the £3,000?

Mr. Davern

That is our secret.

Mr. Clinton

What about the second fishery school Deputy Blaney was talking about that you did not build in Galway?

Mr. Fahey

We have to build one first and I do not think it would be good policy to build two at the one time.

Mr. Power

Or to build the second one before you build the first one.

Mr. Fahey

This would be a terrible mistake to make.

Mr. Clinton

The Greencastle school has not been started yet.

Mr. Fahey

I do not think the Deputy is serious in asking me to build a second school before the first one.

Mr. Clinton

Things are worse than we thought.

Mr. Tully

We thought this was what had happened.

Mr. Clinton

It must be the Minister for Local Government who is looking for one in Galway.

Mr. Fahey

I am disappointed that Deputy Desmond has left because he asked me for a lot of detailed information with regard to manpower statistics. In his absence it might be as well to put the information on the record so that he can read it later on. In spite of all I said about him, I believe he has an interest in fisheries. He should have.

Mr. L'Estrange

Is it not true that you are only waffling? You are afraid to take the vote. You have not got your Members in. Go into the highways and byways and see if you can get them. You have spent two hours trying to get them. You are wasting public money because you have not got your Members in for a vote. You are looking around to get the word to sit down. They are not in yet. The Whip is there now and he cannot tell you to sit down yet.

Mr. S. Browne

Go home. It is over.

Mr. L'Estrange

He is wasting the taxpayers' money waffling.

Mr. Fahey

We are discussing a very important industry. Deputy Desmond has asked for important information —maybe vital as far as he is concerned —for use in his constituency. I would hate to think that Deputy L'Estrange would deny Deputy Desmond that information. Deputy Desmond asked me, and I want to get it on the record tonight——

Mr. L'Estrange

Have you got your gloves for the bullring on Friday night?

Mr. Fahey

——the number of fulltime fishermen at 31st December, 1970. Seeing that he went into such detail in looking for the information I think I should go into detail in giving it to him. Will Deputies please allow me to do that? The number of fulltime fishermen at 31st December, 1970, was 1,964 and the number engaged part-time was 3,897. Those are the latest figures available but the 1971 figures should be available shortly. I will not have them tonight but I may have them tomorrow.

Mr. Tully

Would that be the reason why he asked for the figures for 31st December, 1970? Perhaps he knew they were the latest figures available?

Mr. Fahey

BIM, which is a very responsible body, employs over 150 people in its boat building division.

Mr. Begley

We know that. What about the annual report?

Mr. Fahey

Deputy Desmond did not know it and I do not see why Deputy Begley should deny Deputy Desmond that vital information.

Mr. Tully

It is a pity the Parliamentary Secretary was not in Brussels. The chairman of BIM might have been treated differently.

Mr. Dowling

Smart Alec again.

Mr. Fahey

The annual report of BIM has been mentioned by Deputy Collins and it has now been mentioned by Deputy Begley. He seems to think there is some sinister reason why it is not out in time for this debate. He rightly said that the report is a very worthwhile one containing much valuable information. I agree. It is a very fine publication and worthy of a body such as BIM. But they did not know, and we did not give them any information nor were we in a position to give them information, when this Estimate would come before this House so that they could get their report out before then. It is not a condition for them or for any other State body to have their report out before the Estimate.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is due on a particular date.

Mr. Fahey

The report will be out very shortly and I am sure it will show the expansion that has taken place in the industry. I am sure it will bear out everything I have said tonight. In the absence of the report Deputies will agree that I have done my best to give all possible information.

Mr. L'Estrange

You have done your best to keep going until 10.30.

Mr. Begley

You made a proper clown of yourself.

Mr. Dowling

The Parliamentary Secretary should not mind the pinkeen politicians over there.

Mr. L'Estrange

Or the cods on that side either.

Mr. Dowling

Or the sharks on the other side.

Mr. Fahey

One of the problems of——

Mr. Begley

Duffy's circus.

Mr. Fahey

Because of the interruptions of Deputies I am not able to give all the information I want to give to Deputies and to give it before they have to leave the House for business which they might consider more important than the fishing industry. Now I find that Deputy Collins has gone. He was interested in the Dunmore fishing and he spoke here about fishery protection for Dunmore East. I do not like to say that if Deputy Collins had sufficient interest he would know about the Dunmore East fisheries but it seems to me that if he had that matter at heart he would have remained on.

Mr. L'Estrange

He knew more about it on the radio programme last week than you did.

Mr. Fahey

I, knowing Dunmore East and having known Deputy Collins over a number of years, went out of my way to give more attention in my reply to Dunmore East than to any other area in the country.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Chief Whip is in now. Maybe you could sit down and we could have a vote.

Mr. Davern

The Parliamentary Secretary should not be continually harassed by other Deputies.

Mr. Begley

The Deputy is continually writing.

Mr. Davern

I am taking notes of what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

If, in my anxiety to deal with Dunmore East, knowing so much about it and how interested Deputy E. Collins is in it, I did not give exactly the same details in respect of other areas, I apologise. I might give more attention to areas like Killybegs, Castletownbere, Skerries, Howth and Dún Laoghaire at another time. Time does not permit me to do so tonight. I want to refer again to Dunmore East. Deputy E. Collins suggested that a protection vessel and a helicopter should be based at Dunmore East. We are vitally concerned about having proper protection for our fisheries but this is a matter for the Minister for Defence. We are constantly in touch with him and his Department about adequate fishing protection.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is about the only thing he may be able to protect.

Mr. Fahey

I was present recently when the new fishery protection vessel was launched. It is a credit to the Irish Naval Service. We are glad to know that it will now be available for this important work. I know from discussions I had with the Minister for Defence and his Department that helicopters will be made available if necessary to protect our fisheries at any time. So far as helicopters are concerned their work in this vital field is confined to spotting vessels. The Minister for Defence is giving his personal attention to the question of fisheries protection. In the years to come fisheries protection will be very important. I should like to refer again to the Irish Skipper.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

My main interest is to ensure that Deputies are fully versed in all aspects of the fishery industry.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

On the front page of the Irish Skipper there is a heading:

Norway Gains Special EEC Terms for Fishery Limits.

That is a misrepresentation of the facts. Deputy Keating agreed with me on this point. Deputy Begley thought otherwise.

Mr. L'Estrange

We have been over all this before.

Mr. Begley

The Parliamentary Secretary is reading what he read before. Could the question be put now? On a point of order, could the question be put now?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. L'Estrange

I move that the Dáil proceed to the next business.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. L'Estrange

It is the duty of the Government to have the Deputies here to vote. The Parliamentary Secretary has been waffling for two and a half hours.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is the judge.

Mr. L'Estrange

May we now proceed to the next business?

Mr. Andrews

Deputy L'Estrange has made a serious charge against the Chief Whip of the Government party.

Mr. L'Estrange

You were phoning all over the country for the past two and a half hours.

Mr. Andrews

There was one speech of three hours——

Mr. L'Estrange

You were too busy trying to rig the Ard-Fheis——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Andrews

The Government have a majority at all times and will always have it.

Mr. L'Estrange

They would not have it tonight if the vote was taken. Deputy Andrews is trying to rig the Ard-Fheis.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. L'Estrange

The Deputies should be here to vote. They are all over the country rigging the Ard-Fheis.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy cease interrupting?

Mr. Andrews

There was one speech of three and a half hours on this Estimate.

Mr. L'Estrange

Get your Deputies in and have the vote.

Mr. Fahey

To get back to the Irish Skipper——

Mr. L'Estrange

The Parliamentary Secretary has been waffling for two and a half hours.

Mr. Fahey

——and its edition of February, 1972. On page 3 there is an item as follows:

Comment: The Veto.

Mr. L'Estrange

Who asked you anything about it?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Fahey

I want to read this item on the veto. We have had much comment on what will happen after ten years. On page 3 of this issue there is an article on fisheries. It reads:

On page 13 of this issue we print the section on fisheries from the Government's White Paper on Common Market membership.

Like the official explanation of the negotiations which appeared in the January issue, it is important reading.

But amidst all the political speeches and handouts on the subject of our entry very little has been said about the veto which the Six will continue to possess after actual membership.

This veto virtually makes the new entrants second-class members, despite the impression we have been given.

For instance, when the review clause comes up before 1982, if a proposal is put forward by Ireland to preserve 12 miles for a further number of years, any of the Six original members can veto it.

This makes nonsense of the terms of the review clause as accepted by Ireland, Britain and Denmark.

But Norway, which did not allow itself to be rushed in willy-nilly, has been promised special consideration.

This comment bears no relation to facts. It can do nothing but harm. We are trying to expand and develop. The people who write this type of stuff should show responsibility to the industry they are supposed to have an interest in. This can do nothing but harm.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Parliamentary Secretary report progress?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.