When I reported progress yesterday I was asking the Minister if he could see his way to having a public inquiry regarding the sale of the boatyards.
Supplementary Estimates, 1980. - Vote 36: Fisheries (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £982,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1980, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, including sundry grants-in-aid.
Yesterday the Chair informed Deputy Begley that to discuss a matter of this kind on this Supplementary Estimate is totally against the rules of the House but he continues to flaunt and to flout the rulings of the Chair. The Chair at this stage on a Thursday afternoon can only appeal to the Deputy to abide by the rules of the House.
I am surprised that the Chair is taking this line. It has always been my understanding that within the rules of the House it was permissible for a Deputy to raise a matter that is referred to in a Supplementary Estimate, especially when there is specific reference, as in this case, to more than £3 million. Are we not entitled in such circumstances to discuss the administration of BIM? Surely the House has no relevance if we may not discuss the administration of such a large amount of money.
The Chair has informed the Deputy that the amount of money provided for BIM is for the purpose of meeting increases in salaries. In accordance with the rulings of this House down through the years, nothing but that can be debated under the heading of this Supplementary Estimate.
I do not accept what you are saying.
I have before me the rulings of all former occupants of the Chair in this regard. On numerous occasions the ruling has been that inclusion in Supplementary Estimates of a provision for salaries of civil servants does not permit widening the scope of a debate to include questions of policy and of general administration.
I have the greatest respect for the Chair. He has a very difficult job.
I would appeal to the Deputy to obey the Chair.
I have a difficult job, too. It is an unpleasant job.
The matter that the Deputy is attempting to raise is one for a general Estimate or for some other debate, but he may not raise it at this point.
I would refer the Chair to the small print in paragraph (b) at the bottom of the leaflet giving details of the Supplementary Estimate. This reads:
Issues from the grant-in-aid will be made with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The accounts will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and, together with his report thereon, will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas (No. 7 of 1952, section 5).
Can the Chair relate that paragraph to his ruling?
The subhead that the Deputy is dealing with is D.1. The original provision under this subhead was for £3,760,500. The additional amount required is to pay increases in salaries granted under the national understanding. The rulings of the House down through the years have been that on an occasion such as this matters of policy or otherwise may not be raised.
In other words, the Chair is ignoring totally what is contained in the Supplementary Estimate. What I have read in to the record proves that I have a statutory right, as an elected member of this Parliament, to make a case on an issue that has been the cause of much public concern.
The Chair is not prepared to argue further with the Deputy. If he persists in continuing in this way to flout the authority of the Chair, the Chair will not engage in further hassle with him. Since other Deputies will be in the same position, the Chair appeals to Deputy Begley to obey the rulings.
I am very disappointed with the line being adopted. Surely in respect of a sum of more than £3 million which relates specifically to BIM, we should be allowed to discuss the administration of that board. In anything I may have to say about BIM, I am not attaching any blame to the Minister or to his civil servants. I appreciate the work that they have done but I am concerned regarding the administration of BIM.
The Chair has told the Deputy that he is not entitled to deal with the question of the administration or of the policy of BIM so far as this Supplementary Estimate is concerned. Such matters would be appropriate for the general Estimate or for some other occasion. I do not intend arguing further with this Deputy, who is the only one in the House prepared to ignore totally the rulings of the Chair.
The matter is one of serious public concern. I have asked a number of questions here about the administration of BIM during the past number of months and I have been given a certain amount of information for which I am grateful. However, there were some inaccuracies in the replies to the Parliamentary Questions concerned. This situation shows that the people who administer fisheries have no regard for the kind of information they submit to the Department of Fisheries.
The Chair is making one final appeal to the Deputy to leave this matter for the occasion of the general Estimate. The Deputy is only trying to force the Chair to send for the Ceann Comhairle, but I shall not do that.
I want to put the record straight.
I shall not oblige the Deputy by sending for the Ceann Comhairle. I have explained that the question of the administration of BIM may be raised relevantly when the general Estimate is before the House. If the Deputy wishes to ignore or flout the Chair completely there is not much the Chair can do.
I put down parliamentary questions in this House to the Minister for Fisheries and the replies he gave do not contain the same information that appears in the annual report of BIM. I will give one specific instance.
The Deputy is not entitled to debate the report here.
I put down Question No. 387 on Tuesday, 9 December——
I have appealed, I have begged and I do not want to send for the Ceann Comhairle at this stage. I once more appeal to the Deputy to get away from that matter and to obey the rulings of the Chair. At least the Deputy could be fair about that.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, is the Deputy entitled to put down a motion to discuss the report of BIM?
That is a matter for the Deputy, not for the Chair.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Perhaps the Chair would advise him at this stage.
Every Deputy is entitled to put down a motion.
I do not want to be put out because I have a great suggestion for the near future——
I am only giving the Deputy the rulings of this House down through the years, but he is not prepared to accept them.
I am, but I have an opportunity of saying something to the Minister when we are discussing a Supplementary Estimate on Fisheries. Information that I got from the Minister does not correspond with information that appears in the annual report of BIM. If I could give an instance to the Minister, I will get off the thing.
The Chair will not allow the Deputy to flout the Chair's ruling in that respect.
I was informed that the Dingle discussion took place on 22 November 1979——
Deputy Begley, please.
——and the BIM annual report says it took place on 23 August 1979.
I will meet the Deputy privately this evening, if that is of help to him.
I thank the Minister for his offer and I am glad the Minister accepts the spirit in which I am making this contribution.
The point was made by other speakers that the whole question of BIM should be looked at. There is no point in setting up a Department of Fisheries that have no teeth to carry out their responsibilities. I know that the Ministry was set up in 1977 but for far too long fisheries has been the cinderella. The Minister should have experts independent of BIM to advise him instead of that old war horse in Ballsbridge which has slowly ground our fisheries to a halt. There seems to be a lack of co-operation between the Department of Fisheries and BIM. The Minister should have the power to challenge proposals put to him backed by independent advisers. There have always been political appointments to BIM. That nobody can deny, but it is time for a new approach. Any approach will run into difficulties with sectional interests in the fishing industry, but the Minister should devise some positive restructuring of the whole fishing industry.
The Minister for Fisheries should acquire some of the powers presently held by the Office of Public Works in relation to building piers and maintaining harbours. The Minister should not have to wait for a report from another Department. I was privileged to hold a Government position in the Office of Public Works and I know the system is cumbersome. There should be a restructuring of the fishing industry.
Recently a number of super trawlers were purchased in this country. Who were the agents for these boats? Was it BIM or a foreign agent and what commission did the agents get? I am sure the Minister will agree that the agency that purchased these trawlers should have been appointed by the Minister.
In relation to illegal fishing, whether it is salmon or herring fishing, it looks bad for the Government of the day when a Dutch boat is caught and let off without being charged. If my recollection is right, six Dutch boats have been captured recently and let off. We are holding the whole patrol business up to ridicule if we cannot finish what we start. The Minister will say that we have been advocating that these people should be apprehended, but if six Dutch trawlers have been captured and let go without prosecution in the recent past there is something wrong with the system. Will the Minister say why prosecutions are not brought against these offenders? The Minister can take it that these incidents are causing grave concern, dissatisfaction and disillusionment among our fishermen—that the corvette should capture somebody and that there should be no charge against him. During the summer months the corvette captured Irish fishermen who were illegally fishing for salmon and these fishermen were prosecuted.
It may be that the Minister is prevented from saying something. I do not know enough about the Council of Ministers and there may be technicalities. Certainly it is a crazy situation that six Dutch trawlers should be let off the hook and their captains not prosecuted when, at the same time, Irish fishermen were taken to the courts, prosecuted and their gear confiscated. Also, at the same time, Irish boats were fired on, and an Irish trawler holed, by the Irish Navy for fishing illegally. What kind of selective justice is this? Is our Navy under specific instructions to fire on Irish boats and let Dutch boats off? This situation has caused anger among our fishermen. They are a small lobby, not having the muscle power of other organisations, but that is no reason for selective justice being meted out to them.
I am surprised that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, quoting precedent for it, will not allow me to discuss a grave national scandal. I shall have no other option but to put down a motion of no confidence in the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as far as this issue is concerned.
That is Deputy Begley's right, if he wants to do so.
I am telling the Chair that I am going to do it.
The Chair is saying that it will not allow the Deputy to break the long-established rules or make new rules of debate. I, as an individual in the Chair, have made none of those rules. They are there for years. I have prevented every other Deputy from going away from what is relevant to this debate and it would be terribly unfair to them if I allowed the Deputy to do so. I would ask the Deputy not to raise that matter again.
Can the Minister tell me does the BIM annual report come under administration?
That is not relevant to the debate on the Supplementary Estimate.
Of course, it is. What we are discussing here are the actual Estimates, the new ones.
The Deputy apparently, either does not understand, or does not wish to understand.
I understand the Chair quite a lot. That is my weakness.
We are discussing Supplementary Estimates, which do not allow the same scope or latitude as the general Estimate. The Deputy should accept that.
If a certain fault is apparent in the administration of BIM——
There is no need to argue about this. We have had it before. Deputy, please.
I will have to place on record that I am disgusted at the way the Chair has performed on this particular issue.
The Deputy should not make charges against the Chair. The rulings——
It is a very fair comment.
The rulings of the Chair have been in existence down through the years. The Deputy might study them on the matter which he is now attempting to raise.
I have studied them and see that the administration of BIM will cost £3,760,000, with an additional sum required of £24,000. Surely, I am entitled to discuss what way BIM spent that £3,760,000 by virtue of the fact that they are short £22,000?
The ruling on this is simple. The additional amount required is to meet the cost of pay increases, and the Deputy cannot discuss a policy on that item. That is the ruling of the Chair.
Is the Chair establishing a precedent on this Supplementary Estimate, that we can only discuss the £24,000 and not the £3,760,000? I want a straight answer to that.
Yes, that has always been the rule. It is not a precedent. This is only a Supplementary Estimate. The Deputy can only discuss the supplementary amounts in the Estimate, that is all. He can discuss the full amount on the general Estimate.
Surely I could be told where their sums went wrong that they needed this money? Where were they short, or why did they overspend? There was a shortage somewhere that they had to get new money under this subhead? Surely, I am entitled to discuss that? I thank the Minister for the invitation which he has given me to discuss some of the Parliamentary Questions where I feel that I got misleading information, not through the Minister's fault but because of the maladministration of BIM, from whom he got wrong information.
I pointed out the whole thing to the Deputy many times. The additional amount is to meet the pay increase under the national understanding. Under the rules governing Supplementary Estimates, no debate is allowed on policy matters concerning BIM.
All right I shall have one more shot at the Chair. On 26 June 1979, in the Official Report, col. 874, I requested, for oral answer, of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the number of companies who were invited to tender for the purchase of Dingle boatyard; the names of same and amount tendered by the successful company.
I have told the Deputy already, and he has agreed, that he is not entitled to debate those matters on this Supplementary Estimate.
I want the Chair to look at administration in the Supplementary Estimate——
The Chair does not have to look at anything. The Chair has to give the rulings of the House down the years.
On this Estimate——
Deputy Begley, please. The Chair does not want this sort of hassle on a Thursday afternoon.
Please let me finish and I will listen to the Chair.
No, because the Deputy is wasting the time of the House.
I am reading from the Supplementary Estimate. B1 says "Travelling and incidental expenses, additional sum required for — £33,000. Advertisement £2,200." I am asking here about an advertisement. It has gone beyond reason if the Chair will not give me a chance to discuss the £2,200 down here in this Estimate for an advertisement.
That is the first time that the Deputy has mentioned that. He is entitled to raise that point.
The Chair did not give me a chance.
He is entitled to raise that.
With reference to that, I put a question and it was responded to by the present Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey for the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, as follows:
Mr. Haughey: The arrangements for the sale of Dingle boatyard are a matter for An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I understand from the board that no final decision has yet been taken in the matter.
Mr. Begley: In what newspaper did an advertisement appear in relation to the sale of the Dingle boatyard?
Mr. Haughey: My information is that the Irish Federation of Marine Industries is the body representing boatbuilders here and they were notified of the availability of the boatyard for sale.
Mr. Begley: The Minister has not answered my question.
Mr. Haughey: I have no information about a newspaper advertisement.
Mr. Begley: How many companies were asked to tender for the sale of Dingle boatyard?
Mr. Haughey: I understand that the situation was made known to the federation, which represents all boat-builders and presumably all boatyards.
I understand the Irish Federation of Marine Industries was never notified about the sale of Dingle boatyard.
The Chair has told the Deputy umpteen times that this matter cannot be raised on the Supplementary Estimate. He can raise it on the general Estimate.
The Chair has reluctantly conceded that there is a specific sum of £2,200 spent on advertising. I want to know how much money was spent on advertising the sale of the boatyards, even if it was on stamp money or a telephone call.
Deputy Begley, please, obey the Chair once in a while.
I am obeying you.
The Deputy wants the Chair to do something that the Chair is not going to do. I have told the Deputy time and time again that he is not in order in raising the matters he has raised on BIM. He can do that on the General Estimate, not on the Supplementary Estimate.
Surely——
Deputy, please, go on to some other matter.
I was discussing advertisements which cost £2,200. What is the breakdown of that figure which is specifically in the Estimate?
Where is that figure of £2,200?
I will send it over to the Chair. It is not right that the Chair has not got a copy of the Estimates.
In General Administration, it is under Travelling and Incidental Expenses.
There is advertising under that too.
There is.
I will stick to that £2,200. The Chair has seen that I am entitled to discuss it.
The advertisements the Deputy speaks of have nothing to do with Bord Iascaigh Mhara.
How do I know that?
The Chair knows it and I am sure the Minister knows it. Advertisements under Bord Iascaigh Mhara would come under their own subheadings.
Under General Administration there is a heading. It is an explanatory note to B1 to Travelling and Incidental Expenses.
That is for the Department proper. It has nothing to do with Bord Iascaigh Mhara.
Travelling and Incidental Expenses.
Expenses involved with the Fisheries Act, 1980.
I am grateful to the Minister for his contribution because I have never seen the Chair as sensitive on any issue as he is today.
I am not sensitive. I asked the Deputy not to pursue an issue which does not arise on a Supplementary Estimate.
The Minister has a fair fight on his hands. I hope that when he is making an appointment in the near future to BIM he will put in a man of integrity who will not be bullied and who will have confidence in the Department of Fisheries and the Minister of the day. This debate, limited as the Leas-Cathaoirleach has tried to make it——
Do not be making charges against the Chair.
There are so many questions which must be answered, the sooner a sworn inquiry is held the better, because the £800,000 has not appeared in the BIM annual report. One would need a cancer scanner to pick out some of the mechanics in the report. We have an obligation to the people who elected us, you have an obligation to the country——
The Deputy is again defying the Chair.
I am not defying the Chair. I am protecting the good name of the House and the Department of Fisheries in a way in which they could not do themselves.
The Deputy is deliberately defying the Chair.
I am not. I work with civil servants and with different Ministers and I have the greatest respect for them, but I have no time for semi-State monsters who furnish misleading, inaccurate information.
The Deputy is making charges against bodies which he is not entitled to make in the House. He will have to raise that on a different matter, not on a Supplementary Estimate.
I will, and rosy cheeks will go pale.
That is enough.
This is a Supplementary Estimate of almost £1 million needed for the Department. It is not a supplementary budget, as some people might like to think. It does not involve extra taxation. It merely involves getting money we need because we spent more in the year than we had hoped to spend.
Deputy White said he did not agree with the Estimate and that he was disappointed with it. I did not get any indication as to what he did not agree with. Was it the extra wages that were granted in the national understanding? Was he disappointed with the national understanding, because he would be one of the very few who could be disappointed about that?
Extra travelling and subsistence allowances are mentioned. If the Fisheries, Forestry and Wildlife Department was not involved in travelling, they might as well shut their doors, because to run the Department properly an intense amount of travelling is needed. I am confident that the travelling involved helped the efficiency of the Department.
Extra work was done in the fishery harbours. I am sure nobody is disappointed about that. I am delighted to bring in this this Estimate. It is not entirely attributable to additional costs. Much of the £674,000 is being paid for extra works done, particularly in Howth, where considerably more progress was achieved than we originally anticipated. About 20 per cent more work was done, not money spent, but work done in Howth, than we had thought of at the start of the year. Deputies are entitled to ask what I did. It is not just on paper, it is not confetti money as some people called it, the works are there to be seen. £3,674,000 was spent on harbour works in progress in 1980. Considerably more is listed for 1981.
Not all has been spent on big harbours. Much has also been done for the small harbours. There is an idea abroad that money is only spent on the main fishery harbour centres. Small harbours are not neglected. I will prove that, if Deputies wish. I regret that many of the contributors on the opposite side are not here to hear the true facts. I thank the two Members who have stayed; one was so anxious that he would have contributed again. Some of the others contributed their inky pellets and got the publicity and they are not here now to hear the facts.
In any event, last year we anticipated an expenditure of £3,674,000 which was spent in Howth, Castletownbere, Killybegs, Caherciveen, Dromatoor, Fenit, Frenchport, Oileán na gCaorach, on an oysterbed in Sneem, in Skerries, Travarra, Aughrish, Ballycrovane, Bunagee and Trá Bhad. In the coming year we will be spending money in Killybegs, Green-castle, Cladagh na gCaoireach and other places.
Ballycotton.?
I will come to Ballycotton when I am dealing with the Deputy's contribution. He was very hard on me when he asked me to carry out works in Ballycotton to be completed before the bad weather this year. Nobody could do that. The impossible we might do immediately, but miracles would take a bit of time.
Deputy Fox mentioned the silting in Skerries harbour and complimented us on the work we have done in Howth, and I agree that it is a very good job. We cannot do everything at once, and I am aware of the particular problems of Skerries and Balbriggan. Only last week I met a deputation from the Town Commissioners there. Deputies from the area should be aware that the Dublin Port and Docks Board are responsible for both Skerries and Balbriggan. I am not at all happy with their attitude. They cannot wash their hands of these two ports as they might like to do. It would be comparable to CIE saying that because the city service is paying they will run that and that the rural areas can do without a service. Unfortunately the interior harbour at Balbriggan has been closed to boats of a certain size as a result of an order by the Dublin Port and Docks Board. My predecessor, Deputy Lenihan, made a commitment with regard to lights and water and the resurfacing of the pier area. We will honour that and I will bear in mind what Deputy Fox said in offering his help in the locality, and the help of anybody who can influence the Dublin Port and Docks Board will be appreciated.
Deputy White raised the matter of the hiring of boats for the herring studies in the Celtic Sea which cost us £30,000 extra. Research is the responsibility of member States and not of the EEC directly. No grants have been paid to us for herring research in the Celtic Sea up to now, but proposals are at present under consideration which would include provisions covering grants to member states for research. For instance, there was a joint study in the Mourne Sea by the EEC, the northern part of Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland and there was a subsidy for that. Hopefully the hiring that we now have to undergo every year will not be necessary when we have our own exploratory fishing vessel. The order was placed with Verolme for this. We recognise the need for research; we have acted on it and have filled that need and the boat will be in the course of construction during next year. When it will be delivered I am not sure, but provision will be made for that in the Estimates.
Deputy White assumed too that the Galway fishery made a loss during the year because it is mentioned in the supplementary. The real reason was that £20,000 more for extra wages and rates was required because we are responsible to the County Council for the payment of the rates. In 1980 we spent £45,000 on the Galway fishery, and that includes the £20,000 we are now talking about. The estimated income from it is £65,000 made up mostly of returns from salmon and eels. It was a very far-sighted move to purchase this fishery for the State, and it is a credit to the Department and the Minister who made the decision to buy it. It is one of our success stories. Hopefully we will continue to acquire fisheries whenever we can.
Deputy White seemed to lead the keeners who bemoaned the state of the industry and called this a disastrous period. I have listened for some time to this litany of woe which has been poured out so piteously by the Opposition spokesmen. Unfortunately I did not hear any sensible or helpful solutions from them as to what we might do. We are all very much aware of the difficulties that face the fishing industry, but no member state in the EEC has made greater efforts to assist the industry than we have. When the price of fish fell this year we were the first country to look for a speedy meeting with Commissioner Gundelach to highlight the problems caused by imports of cheap fish from third countries. When others were looking for a suspension of the levies ours was the first and loudest voice raised in support of having the levies on our imports brought up to the maximum. Other member states have now joined us and our efforts have borne fruit.
We pressed for the retention of export refunds on frozen mackerel, and that is a very big boon to our exporters, particularly to Nigeria. Our attitude has been to exert pressure to ensure that, when the market is weakened and in need of urgent remedial action, this is taken more quickly than has been the case up to now and that when priority areas for immediate action are identified at Council quickly than has been the case up to now and that when priority areas for immediate action are identified at Council level, when we need increases in withdrawal and reference prices, we should take action immediately to curb third country imports. We have adopted a very tough line on tariff concessions. We have pressed for competitive levels on fish withdrawls of up to 90 per cent of the withdrawal prices. We realise that these are important matters that we must take a serious view of if our market is not to be placed in jeopardy. I believe that the steps that we have advocated have now been conceded by the Commission and will take effect during the coming year. We believe too, although the Commission does not agree, that there may be a possibility that reference prices could be agreed more than once in the year; they say that the start of the year is the time for doing that, but we say there might be a possibility of having them agreed every six months and that reference prices should be higher than, rather than equal to, withdrawal prices.
We have, as some members did not seem to understand, a withdrawal price for certain species of fish, including salmon, but we feel that the list of the more common species is a bit restricted and we want to extend it to include further species. Those are things that we have pressed for and which the Commission have agreed to. There is a possibility that there might be a storage premium of up to 50 per cent for the withdrawal price of fish where we would have a 50 per cent subsidy for storage of fish at a certain time. Some people may say that this would lead to a fish mountain and might distort the market later on when supplies become available, but it is something we should look for. We need to safeguard ourselves against low cost third country imports. In particular we need some mechanism at Community level for speedier action than has been evidenced up to now. What has been gained is the result of pressure that we have brought during the year, and it has borne fruit.
In regard to the limits, there is no question of us accepting less than the 12 miles agreed in the common fisheries policy. Our aim is to get an exclusive zone. We are not prepared to say how many miles now because this is still the subject of negotiation and the phasing out of traditional rights is involved. Special arrangements are being sought for our coastal fishermen outside the exclusive zone to be agreed. Our aim is to get the very best possible deal for Irishmen. I have consulted with my British colleagues and our interests are complementary. They have agreed that the Hague areas of preference deserves preference. They too would like to become part of this agreement in north Britain.
Only yesterday I had to speak to a delegation from France and I have arranged to meet them before the next meeting to discuss our attitudes and how we can be helpful to each other before the fishery meeting which takes place on Monday and Tuesday next. Deputy White said that we should act now, as if we alone had the exclusive right to decide everything inside the 12 mile zone. We have no right to decide that; no other member state has the right to decide that. But we have succeeded in getting Spain to renounce its traditional rights inside the 12 mile zone. Our long-term objective is along these lines and to get preferential fishing plans accepted and preferential treatment in the outside zones.
Deputy White accused me of not having enough drive and determination and Deputy Treacy in his more pedantic way accused me of inactivity. I can say without fear of contradiction that as fisheries spokesman for Ireland's cause abroad I have spoken out fearlessly and unequivocally. I have used and will continue to use every method at my disposal to further Ireland's welfare. I know that my predecessor, Deputy Lenihan, did the same and gained very noteworthy and tangible benefits for the fishing industry. It might be no harm to give to Deputies in the opposite benches a few home truths. The Parliamentary Secretary who had direct responsibility for the fishing industry during the term of the National Coalition was Deputy M.P. Murphy. This was a time when the fishing industry was regarded as an adjunct to agriculture. When he went abroad to represent Ireland he was completely silent. Not once was he heard to speak on Ireland's behalf and he may well have felt that he could leave it to the Fine Gael Deputies. Perhaps he felt he had no mandate, as happened at the Labour Party Conference in Cork on the question of divorce.
This is the Deputy who suggested that because I was a landlubber I had no business in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. I may not represent a maritime constituency but when I go abroad to represent Ireland I am no mute swan. Opposition speakers say that I failed in not securing a 50-mile limit but none of the other nine Ministers has secured a 50-mile limit, so perhaps they have failed too. I must deal in fact rather than fantasy and I have a fair idea that I am reasonably in accord with fishermen. They may have their grumbles but they will agree that the things we are both seeking are not poles apart.
Many Deputies have referred to the closure of the Celtic Sea and I must confess that the continued closure is as big a disappointment to me as to the fishermen. I had high hopes that we would get a limited opening this year. The early scientific evidence looked good but the recommendation from the scientific and technical committee dealing with fisheries was that the Celtic Sea should continue to be closed. I made a very big issue of this matter at EEC level and I often feel that scientists do not take social and economic factors into account. We had the matter raised again but in spite of the examination and the options we sought we did not succeed. Scientists may say that the best way to get to the magic target of a stock of 40,000 tons is by not allowing any fishing for four years. We feel that if a limited amount is taken out each year and the target reached in seven years two objectives could be fulfilled by taking social and economic factors into account. We received support from our Dutch colleagues and from Denmark. We first suggested a limited opening with a small tack and when this was unsuccessful we suggested that the opening be confined to boats under 50 feet. The final option, on which we have not yet given up, is that we may have a January opening. I believe that there is scope for these openings without nullifying the chances of recruitment and re-generation to the required stock. The door is not finally closed and we will try again on Monday and Tuesday next for a limited opening of the Celtic Sea for herring fishing. I agree with those who have made a special case in favour of small boatmen and these are the people who would have first priority on my list because they deserve our co-operation.
It is pleasing to know that catches of mackerel have never been as good as this year. This is not confined to bigger boats in Donegal but applies also in Kerry. I have been told that off Dingle during the past week two 75 feet boats caught 480 cran of mackerel, so much that they had to cut their nets and let half go.
Deputy White wants greater surveillance and would like a Naval Service vessel to be based permanently in Donegal. The Donegal people did not mention this to me but perhaps Deputy White would pursue the point. We can solicit the help of naval vessels — and it has been given very generously — but we cannot tell them how they should help us. We can leave the matter of seamanship to them. They are active and this is proved by the arrest of a Dutch vessel since Deputy White raised the matter last week. We have an EEC grant for fishery protection. Two more Naval Service vessels are now on order and aircraft spotters and helicopters will be used to pinpoint offenders. Some years ago a court in Yorkshire accepted aerial evidence of poaching and this would be very helpful. It often happens that poachers have moved off before a fishery protection vessel can get to them.
Many speakers were certain that only foreign boats are poaching. The personnel of the Naval Service have boarded them and I will give details later. There is a difficulty in deciding whether frozen blocks of fish are mackerel or herring. In more than 20 boardings of Dutch boats there has not been one illegal herring on board.
Deputies raised the matter of allowing foreign fishermen a 5 or 10 per cent bi-catch of herring when fishing for mackerel. Although I am assured that they can differentiate between these on their sonar equipment, before they catch them, many of them wait for the final shot and direct it specifically at herring before heading for home. We closed that door during the year by doing away with the bi-catch. If Deputies have evidence of poaching they should let us know. I compliment the Naval Service on their co-operation and it would be very wrong to say that they have directed their attention solely to Irish boats and have not harassed foreign vessels.
The Minister should have a chat with the fishermen.
Deputy White mentioned the possibility of an EEC allowance because of our distance from the markets. It would be very difficult to make such a case because our fishermen are in such close proximity to the fishing grounds, whereas foreign fishermen must possibly travel for a day before reaching the fish and lose another day returning to base. It would be difficult to make a case for special consideration at EEC level.
The question of a fuel subsidy is being actively considered.
Can the Minister make the announcement before the budget?
Rich countries are much better able to afford a subsidy and give their boats preferential treatment. We are examining the matter as sympathetically as possible.
Deputy White also referred to appointments to regional boards and said his experience was confined to boards in his own area. He felt that all the appointees were Fianna Fáil supporters. I did not ask the appointees what their allegiance was. I can only say that the recent election in Donegal led me to believe that if one added the percentage of the real Fianna Fáil supporters and Independent Fianna Fáil supporters it would come to a total of 73 per cent. It is only fair and reasonable to assume that this percentage would be reflected in the people on the fishery board. I am prepared to believe there are Fine Gael people on the board. I am not so sure about the Labour Party because they did not put a candidate forward in Donegal to let us have an idea of the confidence of Donegal people in the Labour Party.
That is a poor excuse.
I will mention two people who I know are on the board. One has been on the Letterkenny board for 35 years and the other person has been 25 years on the Ballyshannon board. These people have given voluntarily a life-time of service to the fishing industry.
Are they on the Committee of 15?
Order. Please allow the Minister to finish without interruption.
These people have done a good job and will continue to do a good job. Deputy White said the new boards were an absolute disgrace. I guarantee that the board members will speak up and let their voices be heard when it comes to matters dealing with the fishing industry and with inland fisheries. They will not be like the appointees to the Seanad of a former Taoiseach. During the time of the National Coalition Government those people remained totally silent for four-and-a-half years.
The Taoiseach was silent last week. He would not come to this House.
Someone should have told them to come out of Mount Mellary before the four-and-a-half years were over. I know that silence is golden and I am inclined to believe it in this case, as the two people I am talking about are millionaires. It would have been better if we had heard them speak.
The Taoiseach is a multi-millionaire. How did he get it?
Order.
The appointees to the regional boards are, by and large, nominations of the various fishery interests — driftnet, draftnet, salmon rod, coarse fish and sea angling organisations as well as the fish processing industry. In the coming year there will be elections and I will be relieved of the responsibility of appointing anyone. When the elections take place my appointees will be vindicated and I will be very surprised if the people who pay their licences and who can vote do not return them to office.
Is the Minister aware that they will not allow the Press to their meetings?
There has been much talk about the maximum number of commercial salmon licences issued this year. Much has been made of the fact that it is less than the maximum prescribed in previous years. The Order was made in 1972-73. A certain number of licenses were taken up but in some areas the number of people who applied for them — Letterkenny is one area and Waterford is another — was much less than the number available. In that event we have not offered the number that was previously available but it is greater than the number of licences taken out in 1980. We have alloved a certain tolerance for hardship cases. We have cut back in the cause of conservation but I do not think any hardship will be caused. I share with Deputies opposite a desire for the conservation of salmon. Licences that were not taken up last year will not be issued in some cases, but there is a tolerance to provide for cases of genuine hardship.
It has been said that we should devote more of our time to rearing smolts. The return rate for smolts reared artificially is in the region of 2 per cent——
Six per cent.
My scientific experts tell me it is 2 per cent. Perhaps they return to Donegal to a greater degree. In Oregon they have a system of release and recapture and their return rate is only .2 of 1 per cent. The rearing of salmon has not proved to be a great boon. As a matter of fact, the dumping of caged salmon from Norway may have helped to depress the price. We should aim for a natural escapement upriver to the natural spawning grounds, because that is the best way of conserving salmon.
Deputy Donnellan raised the matter of the Galway oyster fishery. The powers of acquisition included in the Fisheries Act relate to inland fisheries. We could not invoke these powers to acquire private oyster fisheries such as the St. George fishery which was reported recently to have been sold to a French group. To a certain extent this is private property and the right of establishment maintains here. I hope that an Irishman going to Brittany would get the same treatment as we would afford any member of the Community. Of course we can revoke an order if the oyster fishery is not properly used. The central board or the regional boards have no function under the Act to develop oyster fisheries or to acquire them for development. However, for the purpose of convenience we have given specific powers in the Act to protect oyster fisheries. We can appoint waterkeepers and so on.
With regard to acquculture and mariculture, I should like to inform the House that BIM and my Department have liaised with the Fishery Research Centre at Abbotstown and have pursued many new projects during the year. There are projects under way at Mulroy Bay, Cork, Kerry and Killary for scallops, mussels, the cage rearing of salmon and rainbow trout. Orders are made by my Department every week designating new areas. However, we must adopt a policy of festina lente in such cases. We do not want people to rush in with a very large investment. We want them to avoid pitfalls, and there are dangers that we must point out. To get the maximum price, mussels must be put on the market at a certain time of the year — especially in France — and unless they are put on the market at that time one gets a very low price for the product. We want to help people to avoid their getting into such a situation. If a risk has to be taken we want things done on an experimental scale before it gets to the point where they are truly commercial.
Deputy Treacy wanted to know what we were doing about regional boards. He did not seem to be aware that a modern suite of rented offices has been acquired in Clonmel for the regional board.
I asked the Minister but he did not have the courtesy to reply.
This is the first opportunity I have had because everybody wanted to contribute to the debate. I will tell the Deputy that the offices are at 12 Gladstone Street, Clonmel. I cannot help it if the Deputy is unaware of what is happening in the main street of his home town. I can tell him that the furniture was delivered last week and he is welcome to visit the offices any time.
I am very grateful to the Minister.
Deputy Hegarty said I was doing absolutely nothing for the fishermen. He spoke about the Celtic Sea survey, about harbour developments and better facilities at Ballycotton and other places. He said also that abuse of fish stock was never carried out by Irishmen. I would like him to assure me and the gardaí who dragged their trawls through the spawning grounds in Baginbun, of that. We do not have to go abroad to find poachers or villains.
We are constantly monitoring pollution. I agree we have a duty to deal with this. I want to assure Deputies that I share their attitude to small and inshore fishermen and I believe that the people in coastal regions who have to confine their activities inshore should be our special concern. They realise this too. Deputy Tully asked why Mornington Fish Products Limited closed. It closed because there was not enough raw material to keep it going. There was a time when many small herrings were used there. Some white fish found its way there too but with the closure of the Celtic Sea and the bigger mesh being use for white fish in the Irish Sea, the raw material ran out. This is a great loss to the area. I know of a pet food manufacturer in Dublin who used to go to Mornington for fish but he now has to go to Killybegs. I cannot see much opportunity of Mornington reopening unless the supply position improves.
Deputy Deasy asked if Bord lascaigh Mhara had outlived their usefulness. I look on BIM as an important part of the Department doing excellent work. With regard to training and giving loans, many people have gained great benefits from the activities of BIM. They put a mobile training unit on the road this year at Greencastle, which hopefully will find its way to all the important, and less important, ports throughout the country. BIM have been inundated with requests for this mobile unit which can give modern sophisticated training in capsule form to fishermen of all ages. BIM have been engaged in helping the processing industry in Killybegs and Castletownbere where there is a joint project with a Spanish firm, which has been in production and will open this year.
Prices for fish are not as high as we would like, although there have been increases recently. It can be said that we have made wonderful strides in our fishing industry and BIM have played a very important part in that, and still have a part to play. When other European countries look to BIM as a model of what they might do with their industries, and countries as far away as Tasmania look for help and guidance from our industry, it would be wrong for us to belittle the efforts of BIM.
The chairman and chief executive decided to leave BIM at his own wish. When he leaves he can look back on a job very well done. He will not be looking back after four-and-a-half years in office, like some Deputies opposite who were put out of office when the people decided they did not do their job well. Anyone who takes the trouble, as Deputy Begley did, to acquire a copy of BIM's report will see that BIM are anxious to help the fishermen on the home market and abroad.
On a point of order, I was not allowed to use the report and therefore the Minister should not be allowed to use it either.
The Minister to reply without interruption.
BIM helped to push up the per capita consumption of fish at home with market information, advertising and publicity, sales promotion, consumer education, training courses and so on. They have also helped in the export market and fisheries development.
Deputy Deasy asked what we were doing about hake. BIM have applied themselves specifically to that question and have encouraged fishermen to acquire the equipment to fish for hake. They have also provided investments for promotion at home and abroad and I am very confident that their work at all levels is excellent in every way. They are not prepared to sit on their oars. They look around for new worlds to conquer and new markets that might be open to them. I would like to pay tribute to the work of BIM and in particular to the chairman and chief executive who is leaving with a clean sheet.
The BIM decision to sell the boatyards in Dingle, Killybegs and Baltimore was very wise. They were losing £1 million every year. We have three viable yards there now, and none more so than the yard in Dingle, which I have not visited yet but hope to visit around Christmas.
On a point of order, I was deliberately stopped by the Chair from referring to the boatyards. If we are to have fair play this must apply to both sides. The Chair can put me out if he likes, but I feel very strongly about this.
The Minister referred to the boatyards and that is sufficient.
I was stopped from expressing my point of view.
Our main concern would be to safeguard jobs——
The Minister should invite Deputy Begley to go with him on his visit to Dingle.
The Minister may not go into detail; he may refer to it.
I was stopped, and if there is selective justice here it is not a House at all——
There is no selective justice.
Deputy Begley referred to the chaotic condition that 65 per cent of our boatyards were in debt——
No, 65 per cent of our trawlers——
He said 65 per cent of our fishermen were in debt to BIM for loans. As a result of discussions with fishing interests BIM have decided to examine individually every case where there is a grievance. In some cases the loans were examined three times in an effort to help them. Nobody could do more than that. A moratorium is out because people who could afford to pay hope to come in under it——
I do not know how the Minister got the vote at Killybegs.
I can assure the Deputy that he did not get any inaccurate information from me about any matter but if he cannot understand the financial implications of the information he got, I cannot help it. I have nothing to hide. I am completely above board. The Deputy said it was his duty to expose fraud, and it is, but he will have a very difficult job to find any fraud.
The Minister should keep away from that matter.
I want to remind Deputies of the boy who cried wolf. In the end the wolf did arrive but the Deputy will have a job getting a wolf to arrive in his case.
The Minister's performance here today and what he said to me during my contribution——
The Minister without interruption, please.
I was deliberately stopped from speaking about the boatyards. If the Minister is prepared to say there is nothing wrong with them, I will accept that.
The only agents I know who dealt with super-trawlers were BIM. Regretfully the boats were built abroad at the express wish of the people who put down their deposits and who will eventually skipper the boats. I would prefer to see these boats built at home, and hopefully this will come about. At present there is a project in Killybegs where an all-Irish steel hull boat will be fishing this year, manned by an Irish crew. This may help educate Irish fishermen to the value of boats built at home. I should like to assure the House also that, with regard to our attitude to bringing in the Navy to help us in naval and fishing surveillance, we make no distinction between foreign and native boats.
Debate adjourned.