asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the number of boatyards in Ireland engaged in the building of steel hulls for fishermen.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fishing Industry.
1.
At present steel hulls for fishing boats are not being built in this country but two boatyards are engaged in the fitting out of such hulls.
2.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the number of persons engaged as full-time and part-time fishermen during the years 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976.
The information requested in respect of the first three years listed is as follows:—
|
Full-Time |
Part-Time |
Total |
|
|
1973 |
2,424 |
4,151 |
6,575 |
|
1974 |
2,510 |
4,186 |
6,696 |
|
1975 |
2,274 |
4,356 |
6,630 |
The corresponding information for 1976 will not be available until about mid-February, 1977.
Since 1975 the description "full-time" has been standardised on a national basis and defined as a person who in the year under review has been engaged in fishing for periods totalling at least six months.
In 1975 there were 285 fishermen recorded as "part-time" who would have been regarded as "full-time" in previous years.
3.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the number of private boatyards which contract to build boats for fishermen; and the types of boats they are capable of constructing.
There are 35 private boatyards which build fishing boats of which five build boats up to 90 feet in length, three, boats up to 45 feet in length and 27, boats up to 36 feet in length.
4.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the number of BIM boatyards in operation at present; and the size and types of boats they are capable of building.
An Bord Iascaigh Mhara operate three boatyards which are capable of building vessels up to 90 feet long in wood and of fitting out steel hulls up to the same size.
Has the Parliamentary Secretary any information as to the future of the yards? Can he tell the House if it is the intention of any of the boatyards to engage in the building of steel hulls?
That is the intention. The Deputy will appreciate that it is only recently that the demand for steel hulls came about. The yards expect to be able to measure up to the demand. I expect that the yards of BIM will be building steel hull boats in the not-too-distant future.
Do I take it that these yards are not ready at present? When do they propose to do this work?
BIM are considering proposals for providing their yards with facilities for the building of steel hull vessels. The Irish market for steel hull vessels is, as I mentioned, a relatively low one.
5.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he is aware that the import of salmon from Canada and other countries outside the EEC is the cause of grave concern to fishermen and the industry in general; and if he will take steps to ensure that this practice is discontinued.
I am not aware that imports of salmon, which in the present year up to 31st July, the latest date to which official returns are available, amounted to £4,455, are causing concern to the Irish fishing industry.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept that there is evidence that smoked salmon from Canada is being sold on the market here? Would he accept that the fishing industry will suffer because many of those engaged in the business have large stocks of salmon? There is also the danger of disease spreading as a result of the importation of this fish.
The total quantity imported cost only £4,455. I should like to inform the Deputy that we are precluded from refusing applications for import licences. We must give import licences where they are requested. It is not a matter of concern because the quantity imported is relatively small.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept that there is an argument for refusing the licence in the case of Canada because it is well-known that salmon disease exists there? Is there not a danger to our stocks if people are allowed to import from that country?
Under the Rome Treaty and the Treaty of Accession we are precluded from applying restrictions to imports from any country other than by way of tariff or on grounds of preventing the introduction of fish disease. We can do it if there is a danger of spreading fish disease.
In view of the fact that we are importing from Canada and that there is talk of a fish disease in that country would the Parliamentary Secretary ensure that licences are refused to those anxious to import from that country?
The quantity of salmon imported from Canada was relatively small but if there is any question of the spread of a disease the matter will be dealt with. We are satisfied that everything is in order.
6.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if the proposed legislation to increase fines for encroachment by foreign trawlers will be introduced in this Dáil term.
This matter is being considered in my Department in conjunction with a number of other legislative proposals concerning fisheries. It is unlikely that the necessary legislation will be ready for introduction in the present Dáil term.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Minister for Justice, in reply to a question tabled by me, agreed that such legislation was necessary and promised to introduce such a measure? Why the delay?
I expect that the legislation will be introduced early next session. The main punishment for foreign trawlers fishing within our limits is the forfeiture of the gear and the catch. While the skippers of these trawlers are aware that the fine is limited to £100 the gear and catch could run into six figures, as happened recently.
In this review of the legislation will the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it would be desirable to include things, other than the mere increasing of the level of fines, such as laying down new procedures whereby poaching boats can be brought before our courts and the sort of evidence that has to be produced? Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is not simply a matter of increasing the fines but of reviewing and improving the whole catching and prosecuting procedures?
That is being taken into account and if there are any loopholes in the present legislation they will be closed.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that to a large extent the existing mechanism of catching and prosecuting is out of date? In this new context would he not consider introducing methods whereby it will not be necessary for one ship to actually arrest the other ship before a prosecution can take place? In other words, that different methods of instituting prosecutions will be able to be undertaken. In this respect will the Parliamentary Secretary have particular regard to the very efficient methods now operated by the Icelanders?
It is rather difficult. Under the present system the skipper is brought to a district court and if the justice finds the case proved he imposes a penalty and orders the forfeiture of the gear and catch. The trawler owner or skipper are entitled to appeal. I do not know how that procedure could be overcome because we must allow the right of appeal. I do not think that can be done away with. An appellant must set down a bond equal to the value of the fish and gear before an appeal.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary understands what I am getting at. Is he satisfied that the existing procedure whereby a foreign poaching vessel must be arrested by one of our boats and brought to court is out of date and that other methods of bringing these offending poaching vessels to justice should be invoked?
That part of the procedure is being dealt with and, if we can devise more successful methods, naturally we will adopt them. I thought the Deputy was referring to court procedure.
I was, and I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to consider other ways whereby in court the guilt of the poaching vessel can be established. At the moment the ship must be arrested by another ship and the ship's captain brought to court, but other countries are now employing other methods of instituting proceeding against poaching trawlers, such as the taking of photographs from aeroplanes or helicopters which can be produced as evidence in court.
We must take into account what happens in other countries and have some regard for international standards. We cannot just make laws on our own.
We can. What is evidence in our courts is decided by us.
That is a matter to which I should like to give further thought.