It is usual to take Supplementary Estimates for Fisheries and Forestry together, to move the Fisheries Estimate and to debate the Forestry Estimate with it. Is that agreed?
Supplementary Estimates, 1979. - Vote 37: Fisheries.
We can take the two together as long as we debate them separately, if that is what the Chair proposes for Fisheries and Forestry?
The Deputies will speak on the two at the one time. That is what happens here. There is only one speech on the two Estimates. The Minister for Forestry and Fisheries may move Vote 37 on Fisheries and the House can debate Forestry with it. We put Forestry formally and we finish the debate.
I move:
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 the 31st day of December, 1979, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, including sundry grants-in-aid.
This amount is required to meet additional expenditure which will arise on subheads A1, B1, C1, C4, D1, E, F and I of the Fisheries Vote.
As regards subheads A1, (Salaries, Wages and Allowances), D1 (An Bord Iascaigh Mhara—Administration and Current Development), E (Inland Fisheries Development), F (Inland Fisheries Trust Incorporated), the aggregate additional amount now required, that is, £257,000, constitutes the bulk of the Supplementary Estimate and is due entirely to salary and wage increases which were not provided for in the original Estimate.
The provision for subhead B1—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—is £70,000. The original provision was £160,000. Increases granted to the rates of travelling and subsistence, plus an increase in the volume of travelling to Europe in connection with Fisheries matters, make it necessary to provide the additional sum.
The provision for subhead C1—Sea Fisheries Development—is £20,000. The original provision was £125,000. The additional expenditure arises on boat hire in connection with a survey on herring stocks in the Celtic Sea.
The provision for subhead C4—Fishery Harbour Centres Fund—Grants under Fishery Harbour Centres Act 1908—is £28,000. The original provision was £5,000. Due to a shortfall in the anticipated harbour dues, it is necessary to make increased grants to the Fishery Harbour Centres Fund.
The provision for subhead I—Expenditure in connection with Acquisition of Fisheries—is £3,000. The original provision of £50,000 was to enable the Department to purchase the Weir Lodge adjoining the Galway Fishery already acquired, but the cost including legal expenses, amounted to £53,000.
The provision for subhead J—Apporpriations in Aid—is £64,080. The original estimate of receipts was £46,920. It now transpires that between increased income from the Galway Fishery, recoupment from the EEC of grants to producer organisations, and increases in fines and forfeitures, the receipts for this year will exceed the estimate by about £64,000.
The net total of the foregoing provisions is £313,920. It is anticipated, however, that savings on other subheads will more than offset the total excesses, but as two of these excesses occur on Grant-in-Aid subheads (D1 and F), it is necessary to seek approval for a Supplementary Estimate of a token £10, and I accordingly recommend this to the Dáil.
The motion in respect of Forestry is:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,488,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st December 1979 for salaries and expenses in connection with Forestry.
This amount is required to meet additional expenditure which will arise on subheads A1, B1, B3, C2, C3, F and I of the Forestry Vote.
As regards subheads A1 (Salaries, Wages and Allowances), C2 (Forest Development and Management), C3 (Sawmilling) and F (John F. Kennedy Park), the aggregate additional amount now required viz. £1,525,000, constitutes the bulk of the Supplementary Estimate and is due entirely to salary and wage increases conceded since the original Estimate was formulated.
The provision for subhead B1—Travelling Incidental Expenses—is £172,000. The original provision was £1,115,000 but an increase in travelling and subsistence rates, effective from 1 January 1979, will result in an additional expenditure of £172,000.
The provision for subhead B3—Office Machinery and other Office Supplies—is £26,000. The original provision was £67,000. The additional £26,000 now required arises from the purchase of office equipment following the transfer of part of the Forest and Wildlife Service to badly needed new premises during the year.
The provision for subhead I—Agency Advisory and Special Services—is £10,000. The additional sum is required in connection with activities of the Wildlife Advisory Council which were not provided for in the original Estimate.
The gross total of the foregoing provisions is £1,733,000. It is anticipated, however, that savings amounting to £245,000 can be achieved on the following subheads: A2—Consultancy Services—£20,000; D—Grants for Afforestation Purposes—£15,000; G— Game Development and Management —£210,000.
This leave a net total of £1,488,000 to be provided and I am accordingly recommending to the Dáil a Supplementary Estimate of that amount.
In relation to this Estimate, I wish to deal specifically with what we call offshore fishing. Yesterday, we dealt at length with what is called in-shore fishermen. I have a few queries on this Supplementary Estimate to put to the Minister. When dealing with subhead C1—Sea Fisheries—is the Minister dealing with the agriculture side of sea fisheries, or where does this extra amount of £20,000 come in? We dealt yesterday, at length, with the agriculture side of it. I suggested that a lot more development and expertise should be devoted to this side of what we call sea fisheries. Also, under this heading there is the tourist end of fisheries, whereby we encourage quite a few tourists to this country to fish for shark, tope and other sea fish. We are not doing enough to promote the angling side of our deep sea fishing. When we were discussing the Fisheries Bill yesterday the Minister gave a commitment that he would deal with all sections of that Bill and I hope that the Minister will be in a position next week to honour that commitment. The political climate at the moment is such that I am fearful that the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry may be promoted and may not be fishing with such a long line next week.
That is not in the Supplementary Estimate.
It is a very important Bill.
That is an aside. Deputy White on the Supplementary Estimate.
The Minister's commitment is very important to the House and to the interests of the fishermen concerned. A lot of work has been done by BIM particularly in relation to promoting the eating of more fish. They have fish demonstrators who do a lot of work in educating housewives about the proper manner of cooking fish. It is amazing that in this island country we do not eat more fish. There is no reason why we cannot catch fish and have it cooked within 24 hours. This type of work by BIM should be expanded. For instance, we do not have enough sea food restaurants. In the south of France and in Spain fish are displayed on slabs and a person can choose the fish he wishes to eat that evening. A lot more can be done in this line here and perhaps we could promote Irish fish abroad as we promote Kerrygold butter. A lot of the money that we can give to BIM should be devoted to educating more people in relation to this aspect.
Yesterday we were dealing with in-shore fishermen but this evening I would like to deal with the trawlermen fishing for mackerel and herring off our shores. We need a Bill to deal with the offshore fishermen. Smaller trawlermen are apprehensive because the larger boats have the equipment to catch a lot more fish. The ultimate thing is to reach agreement with the fishermen whereby different zones can be set up for the different sized boats. At the moment there is no Irish or EEC policy in relation to offshore fishermen. We need a proper EEC fishery plan which will lay down proper limits for fishermen. When the Minister came into office one of the first things he agreed with the EEC was that Irish fishermen fishing for herring would have no exclusive limit. When discussing this again in the EEC we must insist on some type of an exclusive zone for our fishermen, then the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry must decide on some type of zoning area for the different classes of fishermen. I know that the Minister told the fishermen that he would welcome any suggestions from them but it is not feasible to expect the fishermen to draft their own limits. The Minister should introduce a Bill dealing with the offshore fishermen as it is badly needed at present. We need a proper national plan to direct the fishermen into the various waters.
Cynics may say that there is no way in which we can get the agreement of the fishermen. However, there are ways. At present the FEOGA grant is only paid for a boat under 105 feet in length but it should be paid for all types of boats. After all, the FEOGA grant is paid by the EEC. If the fishermen buys a boat which is 120 feet long he is not entitled to a FEOGA grant at present and this is completely wrong. The bigger the boat the more capital the fisherman must pay. All boats, regardless of size, should be entitled to a FEOGA grant. If that were agreed the Minister could introduce a plan whereby the larger boats would only get the grant if they fished in the outer waters. One of our greatest failings at present is that we do not go after certain species of fish, such as hake, because the bigger trawlers stay closer to the shore. We should get a proper EEC policy, then we should get a national policy whereby the larger fishermen would be entitled to the FEOGA grant as well as the smaller fishermen, with the intention of pushing the larger boats out further to catch the fish that are available in outer waters. In days gone by it was very easy to fish within a few miles of our shores. Now we have EEC boats fishing in our waters and we are not taking them on shoulder to shoulder. We should be encouraging skippers to buy larger boats but we cannot do that unless we give them the proper FEOGA grants.
When we were discussing the in-shore fishery Bill yesterday and came to the section dealing with jurisdiction, we agreed that the jurisdiction we were talking about was a 12-mile limit. Even though we failed to get an exclusive 50-mile zone, in my view we have a case to take to the European Court and can insist that yesterday's Bill gives us jurisdiction over a 12-mile limit. The least we should be looking for is a proper exclusive zone for our own fishermen.
Recently our herring fishermen off the south-east coast had a very crucial time. They cannot fish even off their headlands or 100 or 200 yards out to sea, because the Celtic Sea has been completely banned in regard to herring fishing. At the same time we allow EEC boats to fish for mackerel in the Celtic Sea.
All boats can fish for mackerel.
The large boats from the EEC are allowed to fish for mackerel and are given a 5 per cent by-catch for herring.
That is going.
I am delighted to hear it but I hope it is going only for the EEC fishermen.
It has to be for all fishermen.
The 5 per cent by-catch of the EEC boats is almost the equivalent in tons to what the south-east fishermen were catching. The Minister said the by-catch is going. Would he explain how this will come about? If the EEC fishermen are allowed fish for mackerel, how will he ensure that they do not catch herring in their trawl as well? If the by-catch is done away with and we do not allow EEC fishermen to fish in the Celtic Sea——
We cannot do that. We are in the Community and we cannot dictate to them.
Exactly, but the Minister said the by-catch was going. If the by-catch goes it will not be realistic to expect boats to fish for mackerel only. If they catch herring what will they do with it?
Mackerel grounds are different from herring grounds. The trouble in the Celtic Sea was that they were taking mackerel from the mackerel grounds and moving into the herring grounds to top up the 5 per cent.
Mackerel and herring do not have grounds; they swim around.
The Minister will have a chance of replying. We are widening the debate. We can only deal with the headings here. The only thing the Deputy should discuss is sea fishery development and scientific investigations.
It deals specifically with scientific development in the Celtic Sea. That is the point I will come to shortly. If boats fish for mackerel there is no way they will not catch some herring. The Minister must know if boats catch mackerel they will also catch herring. What happens to any trawler, EEC or otherwise, that catches herrings with the mackerel? Will they be automatically fined?
They will be subject to prosecution.
If a fisherman comes on a shoal of mackerel, catches 95 per cent, and among the mackerel are herring, does the skipper have to throw the herring back into the sea? If he does not, will he be prosecuted?
Yes, but that is in the interests of the Irish Fishermen's Organisations; they asked me to do it.
I do not think it will work. We all agree the by-catch for EEC fishermen should be done away with. We would like it if the EEC fishermen were allowed fish only outside our exclusive limits instead of raping our shores.
Under subhead C.1 the Minister said that additional expenditure arises on boat hire in connection with a survey on herring stocks in the Celtic Sea. I would appreciate it if he would tell us how did our technical people survey the number of herring? I take it this is what the provision of £20,000 was for. The original provision was for £125,000 and the total provision is now £145,000. Are we providing £145,000 for a survey on herring?
Yes, to maintain our scientific knowledge in regard to stocks and so on.
In his reply the Minister might tell us how this survey is being performed and what technical knowledge we have which enables us to tell the estimated number of herring in the Celtic Sea. My information is that we do not have the technical know-how to carry out this survey.
The Deputy is all wet. We have the best scientists in the world——
I am not saying we do not have the best technical know-how in the world, but I am saying we do not have the technical know-how to survey the herring stock in the Celtic Sea.
We are very good on herring. It is one of our best areas.
The Minister will be replying later.
I hope in his reply he will deal in detail with this point because he knows many fishermen are worried about the type of survey being carried out on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.
A sum of £313,000 has not been spent on the construction of exploratory vessels. What exactly does "construction on exploratory vessels" mean? Does it mean our technical people have not carried out the proper surveys for which the money was allocated or does it mean that some of this money should have been spent on the boatyards that have recently been handed over to private enterprise?
It is for a new fishery research vessel about to start in Cork in the Verolme Dockyard.
What the Minister is saying is that this is a new fishery research vessel that no money has been paid for so far but which he intends will be on the high seas next year and that it will have the best technical people in the country.
Yes.
We are an island country. It distresses me very much, particularly in Donegal, that in the last year we saw the handing over of three boatyards Killybegs, Dingle and Baltimore to private enterprise. I do not object to this as long as the Minister can give a guarantee that the work force in these will be increased. Recently another boatyard which was handed over in the early seventies to private enterprise closed down. I refer to the boatyard in Meevagh in Downings. If there is no control on boatyards being handed into private enterprise they could also close in the future. In Meevagh at present £4 million has been invested and it employs about 40 people.
In this island country which deals so much with fishing there is no reason why we cannot make our own fishing boats as well and as cheaply as some of the boats being bought from Holland. The standard answer is that we must import steel hulls from places like Holland and Norway. As far as I am concerned this is absolutely ridiculous. The Minister said we have the best technical people in the world and he must also appreciate that we have the best work force. There is no reason why we cannot manufacture these steel hulls. The problem that has arisen is a simple one but the answer is not so simple. The reason these boatyards are being handed over to private enterprise is that BIM did not diversify quickly enough in steel hulls. Anybody in the fishing industry knew five or six years ago that the future of the boatyard industry was in steel hulls. It is a terrible shame for the Department of Fisheries that we did not diversify and are not making our own boats.
The Minister would say private enterprise will do this job. I suggest they have not the finance at present to enable them to do so. I am very disappointed that one yard has closed and that there is a big question mark about the other three. My one hope is that these boats will see the light and if possible diversify and try to manufacture steel hulls.
In Norway the major industry is probably fishing. There is no reason why we cannot develop our fishing industry a lot more than we are at present. A few years ago I said that the fishing industry in Ireland was only in its infancy. At present it is still in its infancy. We must develop and get more processing plants going. There is no point in us exporting our fish on the bone the same as we do cattle on the hoof when we can process a lot of fish here. We must have better grants to encourage the industry to develop this sector. The main profit as far as fish is concerned is to be able to fillet it, freeze it, pack it and get it to the fish markets and supermarkets.
The Minister should consider getting more EEC grants for the fishing industry. I realise that I am being brief on this important subject but the reason is that we dealt at length yesterday with half of the fishing industry. Perhaps the Minister will listen to the ideas I have on the other half of the industry. We have tremendous possibilities as far as fishing is concerned. We need a dedicated Department and Minister of Fisheries to see that fishing, as in Norway, is developed into one of our major industries. I welcome any money spent on this industry as long as it is not thrown away. I should like to see more money spent on scientists, development teams, on the promotion of fish and on grants given for bigger boats.
As far as repayments are concerned, if people cannot meet them every month, particularly those off the south east coast and in the Celtic Sea area, a lenient hand could be given to them. It is through no fault of fishermen that stringent regulations have been brought in. BIM should be lenient with them. I should like to see more boats being built locally. We spend £ millions buying boats from France and Holland each year. A lot of thought must be given to the processing of fish here. We should only send away the end product. Up to recently we did not take our fishing industry seriously enough. We have now some of the best skippers anywhere in the EEC. The more successful they are the more good young successful skippers we will be able to encourage into the industry.
As regards forestry we need a national plan. I do not mean a plan in theory but one of action. I have dealt with fisheries as it is probably the industry that has the best success of all our industries. However, having said that, our forestry industry is the most neglected industry at present. I mentioned the millions of pounds we are spending building boats but when one thinks of the millions spent on importing timber it is absolutely disastrous.
We are dealing with a long-term plan from planting to cutting down. When one thinks of the Munster Chipboard Factory which has closed down and of Scariff which is not 100 per cent healthy it gives great cause for concern. Perhaps we are not doing enough to encourage the people to use our native raw material. When one considers that £15,000 has not been used in 1979—I do not know why and perhaps the Minister can tell us—we must not encourage the people enough. We have not convinced them that they should be planting different types of trees whether in their own small gardens, farms or on mountain farms where nothing is growing at present. It is distressing that £15,000 has not been spent as far as planting policy is concerned. I welcomed the initiative whereby grants were given to smallholders in different areas of the country to enable them to plant trees. I welcome this but I am very distressed when I find £15,000 not being used by the Department of Forestry.
While travelling through the country we all know—probably rural Deputies better than anyone—particularly in sparsely populated areas the extent of waste land. Some scientist recently stated that probably one quarter of the land along the western seaboard is wasted land, being put to no use. The Land Commission have tried to take over some of this land so that small farmers could increase their holdings and their incomes but there is so much of it—mountain land and land unfit for agriculture—that certainly the Department of Forestry should be investing money in it on this long-term plan I am talking about. There is no point in saying, as the Minister will probably say, that the Department are doing this. It is doing it in such a small way that really nothing is being done to plant any of the now useless land that could be useful land in the future.
Now is the time for the Minister to introduce a national plan by which money would be made available to buy the proper amount of land so that perhaps in ten years' time those who will be in this House will be able to see progress regarding the waste land of Ireland. It is a national crime that this land has not been properly developed. We can all see it. Even in Donegal I can sometimes travel 20, 30 or 35 miles without seeing a blade of grass on either side of the road. But the Department are not particularly interested in taking over this type of land and developing it as we should if we want this to be a viable country in ten or 15 years.
The Supplementary Estimate deals with roads through forests but we are not devoting enough time and energy and money to the waste land we have. When I come to deal with forestry it is nice to be able to say something good and I must say that we have some very nice forest parks. I hope this policy will continue and that the Department will open many more forest parks because Ireland's green belts are probably gradually disappearing. Whether in a small town or a large town many people at the weekends wish to get back to nature. We Irish are primarily a people of the soil and many of us like to visit the forest parks, see the birds and trees. Also, it is an education for the next generation on what nature is about. More money should be spent on forestry roads. At present the only roads for which the Minister can allocate money are the roads directly under his control. I suggest that the roads leading to the forests, even though these are not proper forest roads, could be put in better condition so as to encourage more people to visit forests even though these in turn might not really be forest roads.
The countryside has been starved of money for roads and forests. I hope when replying the Minister will give some definite commitment. That is what we want from his Department at present, not just vague promises without money. We have come to the stage when we must analyse the whole forest industry. We might make money next year or in five years but in 50 years' time there will be money to be made in the waste land of Ireland.
As regards game development it is disturbing to think that in 1979 £386,000 was passed by this House for game development and that only £176,000 was spent and that £210,000 is coming back into the Supplementary Estimate.
It is spent now. The wildlife rangers have been appointed now but technically it has to go into next year's Estimate. It will be a matter of contract.
I shall listen with interest to what the Minister may say in reply but I was shocked to think that so much money should be coming back into this Estimate and had not been spent on game development. We must see that game development continues in relation to forest parks. I know that in some areas the pheasant and grouse seasons are quite good but there are other areas where these species have been shot out in the last five or six years. I know that the Wildlife Bill, as it was called, was brought in to protect different species of game and I am sure all sides of the House would like to see game not only restored to the forests but to the land also.
There is no short-cut with the forestry industry: we must have a long-term plan whereby we consider seriously one of our best amenities that has been neglected for so long. We talk of bringing German, Japanese and American industries here and these are welcome but we ourselves have probably an area of tremendous potentiality provided we can develop it and that is the forest industry.
Subhead C.4 includes harbours and I should like to refer to the major development now taking place at Howth harbour in my constituency. It is envisaged that Howth will be the major fishing port on the east coast and I welcome the development now proceeding. The Howth fishermen generally also welcome the development but they have about three reservations which are causing a great deal of concern to local people. The first concern I have is the facing of the new centre pier, which the Minister is familiar with. It should be finished properly rather than leaving it with a rough stone faced finish. When speaking on Committee Stage on the Inland Fisheries Bill the other day I mentioned this to the Minister and I was not happy with the commitment I got at that stage that the pier would be faced and properly finished.
The second reservation I have is in regard to the up-grading of the west pier. The buildings there have great character. Howth was built when the harbour itself was built in the nineteenth century and there are some wonderful facades which should be preserved. I would also like to see the tenants who occupy these buildings, and who take a great interest in them, given more security of tenure. The front of the harbour, where it is intended to put a new carpark and where many people including anglers and day-trippers are attracted, should be properly finished.
It is intended that in the second phase of the development five acres of the Claremont beach is to be taken over to develop an industrial estate. I have serious reservations about this. A committee has been set up and I know the Minister has had liaison with this committee to discuss the proper development of Howth. They have serious reservations in relation to this.
There is no question of the Claremont beach being interfered with at all.
Yes. It is on this plan here. It is on that leaflet published by the Minister's Department that it is envisaged that five acres will be reclaimed.
Yes, but not for industrial purposes.
Let me put it to the Minister that he is reclaiming five acres of land.
Yes. But it is not being reclaimed for industrial purposes.
The people of Howth and, I am sure, the people of Dublin will object to this. Claremont beach is quite a small beach and generations of Howth and Dublin people have been using this beach and they will object to this. The fishermen are happy with the development of the harbour, but they have serious reservations about the reclamation of five acres of land from the Claremont strand. What was agreed by the Department and the different bodies in Howth was that two acres would be reclaimed and this would be acceptable to the public at large. The other three acres could be reclaimed by extending the west pier, which would also safeguard the west pier.
In relation to the east pier, it is intended putting a nib there which, in my opinion, will be a silt barrier and not, as is intended, a help in the scouring of the harbour, because the tides coming from the Malahide end and down along the Broadmeadow Estuary and the Baldoyle Estuary will wash sand right into the harbour, silt up the part where the fishermen will have to moor their boats and also interfere with the yachtsmen. I again appeal to the Minister to consider this matter. In my maiden speech in the Dáil I spoke about this and I asked the Minister to consider taking that nib off the east pier. We would then have a very good development in Howth.
However, I welcome the development with those reservations. I would also like to mention that the Minister's intention to have a fish auction hall in Howth is very welcome. I do not know how the Dublin fish market survives when fish is caught at Howth and brought into Dublin where there are terrible traffic problems. I now suggest to the Minister that he close the Dublin fish market and shift it out to Howth. That is the place for it because the fish are caught in Howth; the buyers would come there and at the moment buyers come from England.
The Deputy is moving away from harbours.
I am not getting away from it. I am talking about the Howth harbour.
There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate about shifting the fish market out of Dublin.
I just want to say that I wish to see the fish market moved from the centre of Dublin out to Howth and I think the Minister agrees with that.
That sounds sensible. It will move that way in time once the harbour is fully developed there.
We are happy with the development. If the Minister would just take note of these four points I have made, the development would be acceptable.
Two new fishing vessels were purchased in Howth. I have a pain in my arm writing to the Minister because it was promised at the time of purchase of these vessels more than 20 months ago that the FEOGA grant would be paid. This week the purchaser received from Brussels a notification accepting that the fishing vessel had been purchased and would be based principally in the port of Howth. The request was for a payment of aid from the guidance section. This fisherman has consulted me and told me that he is in arrears with the board in regard to his payments and they are threatening all sorts of things. But if he had his FEOGA grant he would be able to meet his commitments.
We have ruled that local matters will not be raised on these Supplementary Estimates. Local matters are raised on the major Estimates at the appropriate time.
Under subhead R1, travelling expenses for people going to Europe are dealt with and I want this message to be taken to Europe so that this man will get his money.
That does not take from the fact that it is totally a local matter and cannot be raised on the Supplementary Estimate.
I am sure the Minister will take note of that. This man has not been paid his money and he is unable to meet his commitment to the board, so I am sure the Minister will look into it. There are two people in Howth affected this way.
Sea angling in Howth should be encouraged because it is so near Dublin Airport and so near the centre of the city. The Minister should contact people like Aer Lingus and Bord Fáilte so that they might set up a sea angling project to get people into Howth and give work to the local fishermen and local people who have shops and so on supplying sea fishing tackle. I would encourage the Minister to look at this aspect of fishing along the sea coast itself.
In conclusion, I would like the Minister to consider the points I have put to him about Howth harbour and to look at the two cases I have mentioned in relation to the FEOGA grants.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Estimates for Fisheries and Forestry. I will start by speaking on fisheries and refer to subhead C.1, Sea Fisheries Development. It represents an admission of the fact that we know sweet damn all about the fishing resources and stocks around our coasts, and anything we have caught up to now since the foundation of this State has been based on hit and miss and a very localised knowledge. By means of the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1977, we created a 200-mile exclusive limit around these shores and, sad to relate, we know little or nothing—more nothing than little—about fish stocks in that area.
A proper survey system to find out what is out there is long overdue. The French and Spanish in particular know more about our fishing grounds, the species that those grounds contain, the amount of those species and, more important still, their location, than we ourselves know. As if to reinforce that point, the General Manager, if you could call him that, of BIM, Mr. Brendan O'Kelly, paid a visit to the naval headquarters in Haulbowline last week, according to press reports, to ask the Naval Service to help him and the Irish fishermen to find out what is out there within the 200-mile limit. It is amazing that we have made only a very scant effort to find out for ourselves up to now. I am aware that the French Navy do help the French fishing industry in the same way and I imagine that the idea that Mr. O'Kelly had in going to Haulbowline was to try to set up the same type of co-operation and to get the type of information which we have not had. I take issue with the Minister on this.
Earlier this year I went on a factfinding mission to Brussels and I put the point to the sector of the EEC Commission who deal with fisheries that we could not know anything about the fish stocks within our 200-mile limit and I asked them to help us to do a proper survey. That type of survey obviously could not be done overnight. It would take several years and vast resources which we and this Government could not possibly afford. It transpires that at present we do not even have a fishing survey vessel. We did have one—the Cú Feasa—but that has been out of commission for several years. We are now left to hire out trawlers.
We are placing a contract within the next month.
That is not a lot of good at this stage. We should have known 50 years ago what stocks we had and where they were. At present we are hiring out trawlers to do surveys for us, and that is the sum total of our knowledge of these stocks. I asked about financial aid for such an extensive and comprehensive survey and I was told that the Commission would be only too glad to help us. After coming back from Brussels I put down a question and the Minister said that he had not applied for any such aid for such a survey and that he had no intention of doing so. A very pertinent question is: why has the Minister not asked for such EEC aid so far? The only type of aid that I have seen——
We get £30 million for fishery protection vessels. That would be a very important fact.
I was going to make that point. The only aid that has been promised so far is for fishery protection purposes.
It is not promised, it has been delivered.
Surely it is more important that we have the knowledge of where the stocks are.
The board fixed it up, as the Deputy said a few minutes ago. He is contradicting himself.
The Minister will have a chance to reply.
I am not contradicting myself. Mr. O'Kelly of BIM went to the Naval Service in Haulbowline, according to press reports last week, and asked them. I did not see anything in the papers to the effect that they agreed. The Minister's assertion that this link-up exists already can hardly be true. It is purely speculative on his part.
I am not in the speculation business. I am in charge.
The Minister has issued no statements.
The Minister will be replying. We cannot continue by way of question and answer across the House.
The interruptions are coming from the Minister.
I have already informed the Minister that he will be replying when Deputy Deasy finishes.
The Minister said, and I quote:
The additional expenditure
——that is £20,000——
arises on boat hire in connection with a survey on herring stocks in the Celtic Sea
From the Minister's own statement and his short replies when I have been speaking and from what he has said previously in the House, it seems that we have no means of surveying the stocks in the Celtic Sea at present. Yet the Minister insists on imposing a complete ban on herring fishing in the Celtic Sea. That begs the question: why have a ban when we have not even one survey ship to find out what stocks we have?
My constituency has hundreds of in-shore fishermen who depend on herring fishing and seasonal salmon fishing for their livelihood. As a result of the restrictions placed earlier this year on the salmon fishing season, they could not make a living during that salmon season. Now they are being prevented and are being threatened with heavy fines and imprisonment for attempting to fish for herring on the grounds that the stocks are not sufficient to justify fishing on any scale.
We do not even know what stocks are there. The fishermen who are the people on the spot with the sonar equipment and echo sounders claim that the stocks are far in excess of the situation as stated by the Department whose scientific research facilities are extremely limited. I ask the Minister to admit that he does not know what the situation is and that all he is making is an educated or, perhaps, an uneducated guess as to the exact stocks that are available.
Three weeks ago I was informed by the Fisheries Commission in Brussels that the question of Dutch by-catches in the Celtic Sea would be debated at the Council of Ministers on 3 and 4 December and for the past couple of days I have been scanning the newspapers in an effort to find out what was the outcome of those discussions and whether the Minister's proposals in that regard were accepted by the Dutch in particular and also by the West Germans but as I have failed to find any reference to the discussions perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he succeeded in getting agreement from the Dutch not to fish for mackerel in the Celtic Sea during which process they scoop up a huge amount of herring. If there has been such agreement, why has it not been published? Until such time as agreement can be reached with the Dutch on this matter there should not be any question of interfering with small boat inshore Irish fishermen who fish in open boats in very bad weather such as that which we experience at this time of year. The Minister should be ashamed to be wielding the big stick in this regard. His guilt was evident during the Cork by-elections when he confined his activities to inland towns such as Mitchelstown and Mallow.
Surely it is not the intention of the Deputy to discuss the Cork by-elections.
The fishermen at Baltimore and Youghal would have liked to have met the Minister.
I met them.
The Minister will be replying later.
I am very interested in finding out what happened in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday last in regard to this question of the Dutch.
I am sure that the Minister when replying will let the Deputy have that information.
Have we succeeded in getting from the Dutch the type of declaration that we have been seeking for a long time? Perhaps the Minister was successful in this regard but the position is that the Dutch fish for herring in the Celtic Sea under the guise of fishing for mackerel. My information is that last week there were unlimited supplies of herring for sale on the Continent, the source of which was suspected to have been the Celtic Sea.
That statement is irresponsible and without foundation. There were large imports of Canadian herring to the EEC.
There was not any sale for fresh herring on the Continent last week and the Irish fishermen suspect that the Dutch have been at their tricks again.
That is not true.
I am glad to hear the Minister refute that suggestion but undoubtedly the Dutch have been catching vast quantities of herring in recent years under the guise of fishing for mackerel. We on the south coast should be very disappointed to hear that the Minister failed to get agreement in this regard on Monday last. All that is emanating from discussions of that kind is that the British attitude on a common fisheries policy is softening but we have not had any specific proposals in that regard though we know that the British as well as the Irish fishermen are anxious that these grounds be opened up again.
On the question of Dutch by-catches and of herring stocks in the Celtic Sea why has the Minister not invoked that section of the Hague Agreement of 30 October 1976, an agreement which the last Government went to such considerable lengths to bring about but which the present Government have never utilised? It is an extremely effective weapon and should have been used by the Minister in the present situation.
What is the Deputy referring to?
I am referring to the right to take unilateral conservation measures.
The then Government were shot down on that in the European Court.
It could have been approached from another angle.
These comments across the floor of the House are not in order.
The purpose of that agreement was to protect any stocks that might have been threatened.
The Deputy should not try to be a hob lawyer.
The Minister has not made any attempt to bring in a unilateral declaration.
We were made fools of in that respect by the last Government.
The Minister will have the opportunity of replying later.
What the last Government agreed would have been upheld in the European Court if the present Minister on the day after his election to office had not said that the agreement was disgraceful and would not be upheld by the court.
Deputy Deasy is broadening the whole scope of this debate. He must keep to the few headings in the Estimate.
I am merely replying to the Minister's assertion which is totally incorrect. The measures taken by us were quite in order but the Minister torpedoed them.
They were thrown out by the European Court.
That was at the behest of this Minister.
This matter does not arise at all.
On the question of a proper survey as mentioned in subhead C 1, why have not the Irish Fishermen's Organisation proposals been brought in? I refer to the proposals which envisaged a system whereby the type of survey we need could be carried out at a relatively low cost and which would prevent the type of poaching which is being carried on wholesale? Earlier this year those proposals were put forward by the IFO. They were agreed to subsequently by the Minister but no action has been taken on them. The proposals were that any foreign fishing boat entering our territorial waters or which was within the 200-mile limit would be boarded by an Irish fisheries officer who from then on would be in a position to supervise the catches of that boat, thereby eliminating the possibility of illegal fishing. That seemed a highly commendable move but it is very disappointing that the Minister has not implemented the proposals. The document concerned was one of the most outstanding I have ever seen.
The Chair must remind the Deputy again that he is widening the whole scope of the debate.
According to the Estimate before us, the Government are spending £20,000 in excess of the amount provided for already.
This money is being spent on scientific investigation but the Deputy is using that to engage in a whole series of matters which do not arise.
If the proposals to which I referred had been adopted there would not be any need to spend that kind of money because the fisheries officers could carry out the type of survey we are talking about and carry it out on the spot while supervising the catches. These proposals refer not only to the Dutch in terms of their fishing for herring but they apply also to the Spanish in regard to their fishing for hake, a species which they catch in great quantities but which is very much an under-utilised species so far as Irish fishermen are concerned.
Would the Minister clarify the position regarding the sale of the BIM boatyards at Killybegs, Dingle and Baltimore? We were told that these premises were bought by private concerns but we should like to hear how the present work force compares with the work force in those yards before they were handed over to private interests. Is it true that substantial grants were given to the people who purchased the boatyards, that in other words, what was involved was not really a purchase but a transfer of responsibility from BIM to private individuals? That is a question I cannot answer. I should like the Minister to refer to it because it is a question that is being asked in the fishing industry.
The Forestry Estimate poses the question, what are we growing trees for? Why have we hundreds of thousands of acres of woods and forests? What do we intend using all this timber for and what is the end product? I ask that question simply because during the past three years we were promised that the processing sector of the timber industry was going to be considerably expanded. That was a very laudable sentiment and we all agreed with it. I spoke on Bills and Estimates and I complimented the Minister on his progressive attitude because quite a lot of land here is suitable for forestry purposes. We have a vast acreage under forestry at the moment.
In reality, what happened in the past 12 months is as follows. We have come from a situation where we had four major timber processing concerns to a situation where we now have only two. A considerable number of forests are rotting because there is no outlet for the product. With a deputation of other public representatives from Waterford I met the Minister in September 1978 to ask him to ensure the future of the timber processing industry in that city. We were referring to Munster Chipboard. He gave in his own words "a categorical assurance" that that processing industry would be retained and expanded——
If it had not been closed by an unofficial strike.
What has happened is that the industry has closed.
I know that. The Deputy knows the reason. Cement Roadstone would have taken it and it would have worked well only for the unofficial strike organised by Reds in Waterford.
There was an unofficial strike which did not help matters. However, that strike ended and we were promised that it would be taken over.
I cannot keep the Reds under control.
The Minister promised that he would expand the timber processing industry but what has happened? It has been reduced by half.
Nobody was let into Munster Chipboard while the Reds controlled the factory——
The Minister will have the right to reply.
Our timber processing industry has collapsed. Two factories have closed down. We have a forestry policy that has no natural culmination. It is a hit-and-miss effort. What is the Minister doing to formulate a national policy on forestry? Are we growing trees and employing people in the factory industry just for the sake of giving jobs that have no end value. That question must be answered.
We want to see employment in that sector. Employment could be expanded but we cannot allow the present situation to continue where forests are not being thinned and where timber is not being utilised because there are no outlets in the processing sector. I should like the Minister to tell us if there is an EEC forestry policy on timber and forests. Can it be welded with the Irish notional policy on forestry? Surely the two are compatible? Surely that is why we are in the EEC, that our products will have a fair chance of being sold on the open market? Obviously that is not the case nowadays because imports from third countries are flooding the market and making it uneconomic to produce processed timber here. I should like the Minister to tell us what are the Government doing to stop this free for all which involves countries outside the EEC. Our timber processing industries and the hopes of expansion are being ruined by this policy. We would like to know when the imports will be stopped and when factories such as Munster Chipboard will reopen.
Is there a future for a factory like Munster Chipboard, for a factory in Scarriff, for the Irish Board Mills in Athy which closed down this year, and for Clondalkin? If not, what will we do with the products of our forests? I should like a rational answer from the Minister on that matter.
I shall deal with the forestry section first. A number of constructive points have been raised by the various speakers. Deputy White expressed disappointment that grants in respect of private planting were not utilised to a greater extent and I agree with him. At the moment we are reviewing the grants with a view to making a substantial improvement in the extent of the grants and in an effort to make the scheme more effective. I hope this will mean there will be a better response. I believe strongly in encouraging private planting. We have a number of co-operative projects at the moment as well as banking and financial interests who are prepared to consider a long-term investment in this area.
Deputy Deasy raised the question of the whole forestry policy of the EEC and our national forestry policy. He is right in that the EEC have not really evolved a forestry policy as such on a Community basis. We would like to see that develop. Unfortunately there is surplus capacity within the Community in the wood pulp industry at the moment. It is not just our trouble but is general Community trouble. However, it is important that we make some attempt to resolve it because we depend on wood pulp outlets such as Scarriff and Clondalkin—we are negotiating with both of them at the moment and they are working in a viable way—and also any other outlets to make use of the thinnings. The proper harvesting of the end mature timber product depends on thinnings taking place. It is the thinnings that give rise to the ultimate quality of the saw-log product. The whole purpose of forestry investment and development is geared towards the provision of a good saw-log product that can fit into the timber mill industry. That industry is a major employer employing more than 1,000 people in Ireland. There are about 160 timber sawmills and there are three or four new proposals before the IDA for setting up operations. There is a very extensive grant scheme being made available by the IDA for the adaptation of existing sawmills. The whole future in that area is good.
At the moment we import for the building and construction industry 75 per cent of our timber requirements, with the Irish sawmills supplying only 25 per cent. The outlets will increase and improve. It is a certain market and the IDA and my Department are optimistic about this matter. The problem area is the pulpwood area that makes use of the thinnings in the interim stage and that is where we are facing problems at the moment caused by the over-capacity I mentioned. That is the score.
Deputy White raised a query to the effect that there appeared to be non-spending in the current year on game development. That does not apply to game development as such. It relates only to the new scheme we have initiated. We are now in the course of appointing wild life rangers. There were delays because of the postal strike, to be candid about it. A number have been appointed in the past few weeks and a number of others are on the way to being appointed. We hope to have between 60 and 70 of these wild life rangers appointed before the middle of February. The shortfall to which Deputy White referred will be expended.
It should have come under salaries.
I agree. By the way it is drafted it seems to imply that it is related to game development. In fact it is not. Game development continued. The exact figures are that a total of 66 appointments will be made. Already 16 have been appointed and offers of jobs have been issued to a further 24. They have been inspected from the medical point of view and the suitability point of view, and we hope to have the others appointed before the middle of February.
Deputy Cosgrave referred to Howth Harbour. We have done our best to get an understanding on the ground in regard to Howth Harbour and to reconcile the various interests involved. I appreciate that there are differing interests. There are the fishing interests, the amenity interests, the sailing interests and the residential interests. Howth is a gem of a place. There is no question about that. At the same time there are very good reasons why it should be developed as a major fisheries centre. We published a leaflet.
I got that leaflet and it is very good.
We have tried to get the various interests together and to get public opinion educated on what we are trying to do. I want to assure Deputy Cosgrave that Claremont Beach, about which there is a lot of concern from the amenity point of view, will not be used as an industrial site. We have sought to emphasise that aspect.
Would the Minister consider using two acres of the beach and leaving three acres alone?
I understand something of that kind has been worked out. We have set up a liaison committee and we have had a number of meetings. We are making a real effort to get this together. We have reached agreement with the sailing club as to where they will have their premises. They are having a marina development on the right hand side of the harbour, and a fishing development on the left hand side of the harbour. My colleague tells me east and west would be more correct than left and right.
What about the facing of the pier?
We are looking at that aspect with a view to getting the facing of the pier done properly. It is a roughedged facing which is objected to from the aesthetic point of view.
The boat yards are going very well under private management and control. I want to assure Deputy White of that, and particularly the boat yard in Killybegs which had been taken over by an excellent company from Arklow with long associations with the boat building industry, the Tyrrell family. There were some redundancies which were agreed upon with the trade unions. I understand the wage and salary rates are higher than they were when the boat yard was owned by the State company concerned, BIM.
There is an expansion of business particularly on the repair side which has proved very beneficial to the local fishermen who have a very important interest in getting their boats repaired quickly to get them out fishing as quickly as possible. The private firm have proved very expeditious there so far as the fishermen are concerned. We have been congratulated by Mr. Murren and the local Donegal Fishermen's Co-operative on this development in Killybegs.
Similarly in Baltimore and Dingle the private takeover of the boat yards has proved successful. Arrangements have been made in the case of the very few redundancies which arose which have been agreed to by the unions and the incoming owners.
I hope the Minister can guarantee to the House that the same thing will not happen again as happened in Meevagh.
I have heard no reaction. I understand the discussions were fruitful and that proper redundancy payments were made where they arose.
A point was made about the fishery research vessel. I want to emphasise that we are now in the course of placing a contract with Verolme Cork for the construction of a very up-to-date modern fishery research vessel. We have saved time in getting it under way by reason of the fact that we purchased the basic designs from Norway. They are the most advanced people in the world in this area. We have paid for those designs and drawings. They are now with Verolme Cork, and work on this very modern design will start inside the next month. It will have accommodation for up to 12 scientists with full laboratory facilities and equipment. We expect delivery of the vessel in 1981.
Pending that we have to proceed on the basis of what is outlined in the supplementary estimate and proceed by way of utilisation of existing fishing craft. We are doing this in the Celtic Sea at the moment. We are hiring four vessels belonging to local fishermen, putting our scientists aboard them, and making our scientific assessments in that manner. It is a practical way of doing it.
I think I have covered everything that was raised. I do not want to widen the debate. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said, there is a danger in this debate of getting into a more general discussion. The supplementary estimates are really confined to specific areas. One point was referred to by Deputy White which I omitted to mention. We get a FEOGA grant for boats of up to 90 feet. We give a national grant over and above that. This suits us because the pressure is on from bigger countries who have a greater utilisation of big boats to get FEOGA grants. We and the Italians are the big users of these grants because they apply up to 90 feet only. In addition to what we get from FEOGA by way of a 50 per cent grant, we have our own national scheme of a grant of 25 per cent on top of that and there is no length limit. By reason of the limitation we are benefiting to a greater extent than the larger fishing nations and, at the same time, we can top up grants with our own grants where necessary.
I want to thank the House for the constructive approach adopted to the Estimates. I hope we can have further constructive debates on the development of fisheries and forestry. I want to thank the House also for the very constructive discussions we had yesterday on the Fisheries Bill. I am sorry we could not get the amendments in today but I hope we will have them on Tuesday when we can have an accommodating debate on Report Stage amendments.
We hope the Minister will be here.
Vote put and agreed to.