Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Mar 1981

Vol. 328 No. 2

Estimates, 1981. - Vote 37: Fisheries (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £20,194,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1981, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, including sundry grants-in-aid.
—(Minister for Fisheries.)

Deputy Donnellan was in possession and has 58 minutes remaining.

Before Question Time I was about to deal with the one issue on which I intended to speak on this Estimate, which is, the St. George Fishery at Clarinbridge. There was a Supplementary Estimate for Fisheries debated in this House on 3 December last. On the previous day I had a reply from the Minister to a parliamentary question I had posed regarding the acquisition of the St. George Fishery. It is a fishery that runs along the coast for approximately a mile in the Kinvara-Ballinderry marine area, a total of 810 acres. At that time I asked the Minister for Fisheries if he was aware that it was reported in a local western paper that the fishery had been bought by a group of French people, deemed to be a French consortium — a group of four people is how they were described. I had a reply from the Minister that the sale of the fishery had gone through and seemingly had been sanctioned by him.

The Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Fisheries was debated in this House on 3 December. I availed of that opportunity in the House to ask the Minister for Fisheries if he would acquire this fishery. I presented the case in the best way possible on behalf of the 300 fishermen who might hope to make a livelihood from this fishery. The Minister stated, in reply that part of the reason he could not acquire that fishery was that the powers of the Central Fisheries Board extended only to the acquisition of fisheries for the implementation of a development programme. It was stated that the St. George Fishery was not the subject of such a development programme and that therefore the Central Fisheries Board had no authority to acquire it. That was the bones of the reply the Minister gave on that occasion. From the little I know about the Central Fisheries Board they do have power to acquire this fishery. On that occasion I indicated my disappointment at the decision of the Minister and the Central Fisheries Board not to acquire that fishery.

Since that date in December last many meetings have taken place between local politicians and the fishermen who want the Minister to acquire that fishery. One of those meetings was attended by the Minister. The sale took place some time before 3 December last; I cannot recall the exact date but it does not really matter. We are now at 26 March and I am expressing an opinion on behalf of the 300 fishermen. I am the only person to do so, however well or badly I may do it. The other people representing the area — the Minister for the Gaeltacht, the Minister of State at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and Deputy Molloy — seem reluctant to express an opinion in the House on this issue. There are a couple of other people down there who would like to get in on the act. Of course, if they were part of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party in the House they might not have the will or be given the opportunity to express their opinion.

Does the Deputy want them to come in?

I do not think we could let them in. We will leave it in the capable hands of Deputy Donnellan.

A decision will be taken in the not too distant future on how many of them will get in.

Fair enough, we will await that eventuality.

I will say this, that if we do not see some action on the part of the Minister in relation to this fishery it will be easy to count the numerical support for his Party on the ground in that area at the next election. Local people are inclined to express the opinion that the Minister for Fisheries seems more inclined to take action on behalf of those French people, taking their side, rather than that of the 300 local fishermen.

Since that date in December last there have been many meetings held, to none of which could we entice the powers that be. However, on 17 January last, at 9.15 a.m., the Minister for Fisheries — I think he had attended a Fianna Fáil social in Galway the evening before and it would be on his way home to Kildare — arrived in Kilcolgan to meet all the interested parties, including all the politicians and aspiring politicians. On that occasion we had a great chat with him, when there was represented to him in the best possible way the reason we thought that fishery should be acquired. In fact, he expressed such a keen interest in it that he even went to inspect the fishery. I left the meeting at that stage because I had to attend "clinics" and, as a result, was not in the Minister's presence when he inspected the fisheries.

The Minister inspected that fishery and, as a result, all who took part in the meeting on 17 January were of the impression that they were going to get some action. The Minister on that occasion was backed up by the Minister for the Gaeltacht and the Minister of State. When seeing all this power coming down to a place called Moran's in Kilcolgan, I was sure we would get some action. The people of the area were disappointed when they did not even get a reply from the Minister for quite some time — about five or six weeks — even though the Minister promised to have the matter investigated. It was hoped that he would revoke the licence granted for the St. George fishery. To make a long story short, nothing has happened since.

Last Monday, 23 March, the Minister met a deputation of the local community representing all the political interests, among others. I was not able to attend the meeting as I was otherwise engaged politically in Galway. These people expressed their points of view to him and he said he would make a decision on the future of this fishery within a week or ten days. I tried to raise the question on the adjournment twice already, but when the Fisheries Estimate was coming up today, I decided to wait until now. I am here today to put the case to the Minister that this fishery be acquired for the benefit of the Irish people living in that area. A group of French people have acquired — or have been allowed to acquire — this fishery.

I presume that the purchase of a fishery is somewhat similar to the purchase of land. In most cases as far as land is concerned — particularly a large tract of land, more so if it is being acquired by a non-national — the sanction of the Land Commission would be necessary. In the purchase of this fishery by a group of fellow Europeans, but foreigners, it was presumably necessary to get the sanction of the Minister. Having got his sanction, there is a further stipulation that one must apply for a fishing licence — the case is different for a farmer buying land, because he can start farming right away. The Minister for Fisheries and Forestry granted the licence, which was all right at the time. I do not know if there is a tieup between the Minister or his party and this group of French people. It smells rotten in Galway that we have a native Minister who will not act on behalf of Irish fishermen — part-time farmers, none of whom is wealthy.

I am sure that the Minister does act on their behalf.

That is what I want him to do, but he has not been doing it.

During these meetings it was stated that there may not be adequate legislation on the Statute Book to allow the Minister to acquire this fishery. If that is so, let us introduce the legislation immediately, even if for the sole purpose of acquiring this fishery. It is the stated policy of the Fine Gael Party that any fisheries which come on the market should be acquired by the State for the benefit of the local community. Everyone, regardless of his or her political affiliation, must agree with that. How did the St. George fishery ever get into foreign hands? I will tell you how all these fisheries got into foreign hands. They were all granted by royal charter, which is, in actual fact, the crown. This happened years and years ago and these fisheries have been passed down from one generation to the next.

Until quite recently I represented a totally inland area, but I was aware that there were a lot of privately owned fisheries around the coast, most of these being in the hands of non-nationals. In this day and age there is much expression of opinion in Parliament about affairs in the North of Ireland and that we should be one entity, which is only natural and which nobody in this House would disagree with, although some may claim that they are more part of it than others. Take the southern part of Ireland and here we are speaking about 810 acres of coastline around Galway and the Government are signing this area over to Frenchmen. The very nationalistic party in power at the moment express so many diverse opinions about the part of the country which is in the hands of a foreign power and are giving away another little bit, 810 acres off the coast of Galway. That is wrong. They should not be expressing so much of an interest in what they have not got and at the same time handing away what they have. There is a slight parallel between the two.

The salmon weir in Galway, which was in the hands of a non-national, was the subject of discussions and fish-ins over the years. It was recently acquired at an approximate cost of £250,000. In one year that cost has been recouped by catches of eels alone — about 17 tonnes in the one year. It would be no great financial burden on the State to acquire these fisheries by a gradual process, starting with the one I have been speaking about, the St. George fishery. Due to the inaction of the Minister and the Department, one local Fianna Fáil councillor said "Let us get the Taoiseach to do it". All right, we call on the Taoiseach, the big daddy, to come down and crack the whip, withdraw the licence and take over the fishery.

Suppose, for one moment, a similar sized fishery was for sale on the coast of Brittany. Do you think that Irish people, even if they had the finance, would be allowed to buy it and be granted a licence to farm that fishery? Not on your life. Typical of us Irish, that is the way we are behaving. As regards this fishery and all other shell fisheries around our coast, regardless of what hands they are in, I hope the day is coming fast when we will see them all in the hands of our own people. We should train people in mariculture in the same way as we train experts in agriculture with a view to ensuring that we farm our fisheries for the benefit of the Irish fishermen and the Irish people generally. In the St. George fishery most of the 300 people involved are part-time fishermen. They deserve special consideration.

I remember very clearly in 1977 prior to the change of Government a great deal of hassle as to who was doing what for our fishermen. There was talk of a fishing limit around the coast and I remember Brian Lenihan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs now — he puts his foot in it often enough and, if I put my foot in it by not addressing him properly, I apologise — and the man who picked up the crumbs from the rich man's table, Minister of State, Gallagher, once deposed, I remember them, when the Government of the day were trying to negotiate a proper fishery limit, stating that a 50 mile limit was the right of the Irish fishermen. They said it was their natural right to have that. Of course, once June 1977 passed and the big majority came in after convincing the poor fishermen they would do the devil and all for them, that 50 mile limit was conveniently forgotten about. I listened to Deputy Coughlan today, the victor in Donegal, stating that the price of fish at the moment to the fishermen is less than it was in 1977 and costs are doubled. One wonders where priorities lie or what is the Government's policy in regard to our fishermen.

In order to assess the value of a fishery it is generally estimated that one acre of seabed properly farmed is equal to ten acres of agricultural land. For the education of those who would not have any idea of the size of 810 acres of seabed I am talking now about 8,100 acres of fairly good agricultural land. That is what I am talking about when I talk about the St. George fishery. The Minister must be aware of the militant action being taken by the fishermen in that area. He must be aware that the quay there is being picketed by the local fishermen. He must be aware that they are dissatisfied with the lack of action. He certainly has been aware of the situation since 3 December last when I spoke here on the matter. He has had ample time to make up his mind. I do not know who he is protecting. Does he or the Government have some link with the people there? More militant action will be taken in the future unless this fishery is acquired and I now call on the Government to acquire it as soon as possible.

The Minister referred this morning to Rossaveal and said he intended in the very near future to declare it a major fishery harbour centre. I am disappointed to find no money has been allocated for the development of Rossaveal as a major fishery centre. We seem to have got no further than talking. No money has been allocated for Rossaveal just as no money has been allocated for the purchase of the St. George fishery. There has been talk about reports. The Minister said:

I intend in the very near future to declare Rossaveal a major fishery centre. With this in mind I set up, in June 1980, the Rossaveal Harbour Development Advisory Committee, on which all interested parties were represented, to recommend for my consideration appropriate works in order of priority for the development of the infrastructure of Rossaveal harbour. I expect that the Committee's report with recommendations will be available in the course of the next few months.

Let us hope they will be available in the next few months. The Minister has been very slow getting things off the ground. Have any plans been made for the development of the infrastructure, such as roads and so on? The roads in the area are indescribable and a large input of money is essential if Rossaveal is to be developed as a major fishery centre. The Minister has responsibility, though not total responsibility, for the infrastructure. I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would like to interrupt me and say the Department of Fisheries and Forestry have nothing to do with roads.

The Deputy should wait until he is interrupted.

You do it often enough. I was just anticipating.

Not so very often.

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you had me fooled.

I would not like to try that.

Maybe you had. The infrastructure is very necessary. So is the finance. Does the Minister intend to erect a processing factory there? Are there any plans in that direction? If this is the case I should be very interested to know about it.

Finally, I want to refer to a number of piers and harbours along that coast which are the responsibility of others as well as the Department of Fisheries.

The Office of Public Works, I should think.

Yes, and would you believe that the Department of the Gaeltacht also have responsibility and that the Department of Fisheries have responsibility there?

I would believe anything the Deputy tells me.

On the Office of Public Works last week I spoke about the condition of Clifden Harbour. The Department of Fisheries should co-operate with the Department of the Gaeltacht and the Office of Public Works in improving facilities at Clifden and Cleggan and in that area. Not only will this benefit fishermen but it will also facilitate tourism, because naturally where there are fish there will be fishermen and when it is also a scenic area you will have tourists, and the condition of these piers is tied in with other industries. I am thinking of piers from Leenane, Rossroe, Renvyle, Ballinakill, Cleggan, Clifden, Ballyconneely, Roundstone, Letterard, Carna, Kilkerrin, Lettermullen, right around to Rossaveal where I began, where very little money has been spent. It is necessary that something should be done to improve these piers by the Department of Fisheries in conjunction with the Office of Public Works and the Department of the Gaeltacht. I do not seek a very large allocation of money.

I was particularly interested to find the Department getting in touch with the Department of the Gaeltacht because I think they are supposed to come up with the money for most of these piers because they are in the Gaeltacht areas. But the Minister has a role to play also. He should work hand in hand with the Department of the Gaeltacht to improve facilities for fishermen and tourists in that area.

The Supplementary Estimate for Forestry gives us an opportunity to express our views about many areas where expenditure is incurred. I intend to deal specifically with the State support provided in this Estimate for a new company to be known as Chipboard Products Limited in Scarriff, County Clare, where the State has decided for the first time in the case of the timber industry, to have a strong share capital and to appoint four State directors. I want to make it quite clear that I give my unqualified and total support to the provision of State investment to make this industry viable. The former industry, Chipboard Limited, had many ups and downs over a period of years, but now the local investors who previously invested in Chipboard Limited have shown extraordinary faith and confidence in the new industry and in the directors and managing director who will be running the new business. The new company will give employment to approximately 222 people and 95 per cent of it will be male. They will also have three shifts for five days and two crews on the weekend. This means that local small farmers will have an opportunity to supplement the income from their farms. In this area that is vital because there are no other industries. The taxpayers have had the doubtful advantage of contributing to State investment without enjoying much there themselves up to now.

The intention of management there is to co-operate with AnCO, which will improve productivity within the firm. The State grant will help with re-equipment. The State is not helping a lame duck but helping people who have contributed in an exceptional way in establishing Chipboard Products. Local shareholders have invested and paid £193,000 in this case. They have also made provision for £57.000 in loans for this company. That shows the faith local investors have in the industry. Total private shareholding has amounted to £250,000. This is a rare example of co-operation in rural areas. We must appreciate local effort as the State has done in this case.

There were several difficulties regarding expenditure and costs in the former firm. These will now be eliminated. Wages and salaries cost £1.25 million last year. Fuel and energy costs were exceptionally high for kiln drying timber, amounting to £700,000 last year. This was a big drain on the company's finances. With innovations and the use of the sawdust from the processing in the mill, there will now be a reduction in fuel costs to less than £500,000, giving an initial saving straight away. Previously, there was a heavy drain on finances of about £400,000 annually for interest charges. In no way could the company survive where those charges had to be met. In every respect the new company is worthy of State confidence and the investors are most optimistic. This is the type of industry which has future potential. Last year sales amounted to £7 million. There is no other such company in this country, apart from one in the North of Ireland in Coleraine. We have done a good job in that we are supporting the remaining chipboard industry in the State. If we had not provided this investment we would be importing these products. There is definitely a net gain to the country in the balance of payments of approximately £4 million.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share