The question I tabled referred specifically to Skerries harbour—Skerries harbour as it is and as it will be in the light of the much publicised agreement in The Hague a number of weeks ago. I am bitterly disappointed with the answer given to me by the Parliamentary Secretary, which gives no hope to the fishermen at Skerries for the expansion of their fleet and the provision of proper landing facilities for them for the future. It casts doubt on the sincerity of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his pronouncements from The Hague in relation to the expansion of the fishing fleet as he envisages it over the next couple of years. The Hague Agreement, as I understand it, promised roughly 300 extra boats into our ports over the next three years, a doubling of our catch over the same period. How can this be done if there are no proper harbour facilities?
The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Fishery Harbour Centres Act of 1968 envisaged five major harbours in this country and Skerries was not one of them. The 1968 Act never envisaged the type of expansion we have seen and that is envisaged over the next couple of years. What we are talking about now is a 200-mile limit for Europe and, I hope, if we are not sold out by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a 50-mile limit exclusively for our own fishermen. If we are to see the extra 300 boats, if we are to see the 50-mile limit and what it promises to us, how can we operate on the basis of the 1968 Act?
There are problems on the west and south coasts, but I want to talk about the east coast now. The main harbours of the east coast are Howth, Skerries, Balbriggan and Clogherhead. Howth had an intensive expansion campaign about four years ago. A great deal of money was spent on it, and no matter how much more money is spent on it, it can still only deal with the same size boats as they have now, and it is chock-a-block at the moment. No matter how much the inner harbour is deepened, nothing can be done with the outer reef. Balbriggan needs deepening and improvement to the harbour walls, something I have raised with the Parliamentary Secretary on a number of occasions, and Clogherhead needs extra facilities; but for both of them they would be merely improvements of existing harbours.
The one great hope for the eastern fishermen is a new harbour at Skerries. The Parliamentary Secretary ignored the depth of the question I tabled to him last week and instead of answering the question I asked him about a completely new harbour, he merely spoke about an extension of the existing harbour. In the light of The Hague Agreement and the possibility of a 50-mile exclusive limit for our fishermen, the expansion of the existing harbour would be of no benefit to the Skerries fishermen.
The existing situation in Skerries is this: there are roughly £10 million worth of boats there. There are orders and potential for a further £10 million worth of boats within the next ten years. Between £20 million and £25 million worth of boats will be in the Skerries harbour within the next two to two and a half years. There is a ludicrous situation even with the existing fleet in Skerries. The boats pull in at night-time. They are three or four abreast to the harbour wall. A half a million pounds worth of a boat pulls in in low water. If they are not in early, the crew have to unload their catch and carry it across four or five decks to the harbour wall. It is pulled up by ropes on to the quay and then taken by truck to the Dublin market. If the crew want to take ice on board they bring the ice along in a wheelbarrow to the harbour wall and again take it down by ropes and across a number of decks to their boat. When we are talking in terms of an investment of £250,000 or £500,000, such procedures for loading and unloading are ludicrous.
If there was a factory being opened in the Parliamentary Secretary's constituency in Cork, in Galway or in any other constituency and if the Government, the IDA or whatever State authority was involved had invested £500,000 in it, I have no doubt that there would be three or four Ministers down there opening it, a very good dinner at which all local dignitaries would be invited to celebrate the occasion. Here is a situation at Skerries where £500,000 worth of a boat operates in conditions which prevailed at the time of Our Lord in the Sea of Gallilee. In his reply to my question last Thursday the Parliamentary Secretary said:
I will provide a State contribution for the improvements needed at this harbour but I must obtain first an engineering report and an estimate of cost from the Office of Public Works on the works proposed. I understand that that office has placed a contract for a boring survey as a preliminary to drawing up the engineering report.
May I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should not insult the intelligence of the Skerries fishermen by talking any more about boring surveys. They have listened to that since this Government came into office. They have listened to promises about boring equipment being sent to Skerries. The boring equipment eventually arrived; one hole was dug and those involved took off never to be seen again. No survey has been done and no proper report has been prepared. I gather there is a further boring survey under way and that a contract has gone out for it.
The time for the petty thinking attached to providing a mere extension to Skerries harbour is gone. It might have been all right a few years ago but not any longer. The extension of the existing Skerries harbour would merely exacerbate an already difficult situation. All it would do is extend the harbour into shallow water. That would not accommodate the bigger boats, the 85- and 90-footers that are on order and being awaited.
I shall tell the Parliamentary Secretary a little story. About a month ago there was a north-westerly gale on a Friday night, and at about ten o'clock at night the crews of two of the boats had to go on board and take them out in that gale. They could not get into Howth because of the gale and the direction of the wind. They had to go right up to Butt Bridge. They took their lives in their hands that night. Had they stayed in Skerries harbour their boats would have been destroyed up on the beach. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary realises that talking about extending the harbour is only nibbling at the problem. The problem must be viewed broadly in the long term, not narrowly in the short term. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to lift himself up above mere extensions and look at the potential of the Irish fishing fleet and Irish fishing waters.
The one great hope of the east coast fishermen is a proper harbour in Skerries, a harbour which will give water at all times, a safe harbour from which men will not have to pull out in the middle of the night, no matter from where or how the wind blows. A proper harbour will mean that their half-million and quarter-million pound boats will not be sitting on an uneven harbour bed. That is what they are doing at the moment in Skerries.
What happens? A quarter of a million pounds worth of boat pulls into Skerries harbour. The tide ebbs and that boat is left sitting on an uneven harbour bed. The hull gets damaged. If the Parliamentary Secretary is unfamiliar with the situation he can check it out with An Bord Iascaigh Mhara because they have been examining it. They have walked it. I was with them. They examined the bed of the harbour. It is in a very, very dangerous condition.
If the Government are really serious about it in their much talked of interest in our fishing industry they simply cannot be unaware of the importance of Skerries harbour to east coast fishermen. The whole east coast fishing depends on a proper harbour at Skerries, a harbour providing deep water at all times, with proper berths, proper sale sheds, proper ioing plants and proper fuelling plants. All these can be provided but only if Skerries is provided with a new harbour.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked about the Fishery Harbour Centres Act of 1968 and the development of State fishery harbour centres and says he does not propose to extend these to include Skerries. When he makes a statement like that he is not thinking in terms of 1976. He is thinking in terms of 1968. I would like him to assure the House tonight that he will first of all, improve Balbriggan harbour and erect a proper harbour wall and a proper harbour bed; that he will also improve Clogherhead and survey and build a complete new harbour in Skerries which will form the basis of the fishing industry on the east coast.
Skerries is the harbour closest to the fishing grounds. If the Government are serious about the extension of our fishing limits and the doubling of our catch over the next couple of years we must have a new east coast harbour and in my view that can only be in Skerries. The extra 300 boats envisaged in The Hague agreement could not be accommodated in Howth or Balbriggan. Small boats can utilise the latter but, as I say, both Balbriggan and Clogherhead must be improved to accommodate these properly. If there is an extension of the existing position all you will do is go into shallow water and further exacerbate an already exacerbated situation. The only hope for the east coast fishermen with 300 extra boats and a 200-mile limit, with an exclusive 50-mile limit, is the building of a new harbour at Skerries.
