Vol. 333 No. 3
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
This is a Bill to extend the statutory limit on borrowings by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara from the Central Fund. The second reading of this Bill was initiated by my predecessor on 26 January and debate on the measure resumed on the following day but had not been completed when the 22nd Dáil was dissolved on that day. For that reason it is now necessary for me to reintroduce the Second Stage.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not want to interrupt but I do not know if the Minister intends to make a lengthy speech. If so I would welcome the usual courtesy of a copy of it.
I am making a very brief speech which is setting out the background to the reintroduction of the Bill today. I am not making a comprehensive speech at this stage on the various aspects of the fishing industry.
I am sure the Deputy appreciates that this is not a matter for the Chair.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not wish to fault anybody. I am sure this is an oversight.
I will briefly outline the main provisions of this short Bill. BIM, in addition to their grant-in-aid for capital development, the bulk of which is used to provide grants for the purchase of new fishing boats, receive repayable advances each year from the Central Fund for the provision of loans at a reduced rate of interest for the same purpose. These advances are repaid to the Central Fund from the loan repayments made by purchasers of boats.
Under existing legislation, section 2 of the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1974, the amount of outstanding repayable advances from the Central Fund to the board may at no time exceed IR£15 million. That limit has now been reached and it is necessary that it be extended so that the development of our sea fishing industry may continue. Because of the rapidly rising cost of fishing vessels and the tendency to use increasingly larger vessels together with the modernisation of the existing fleet, I consider that the limit should be raised to IR£40 million, and I recommend this short Bill to the House.
As this is the first occasion on which I have spoken here, perhaps I should mention a few items which I am concerned about in my short time in the Department. It is already evident to me that fishermen, not only in Ireland, but throughout Europe, are faced with many difficulties mainly because of reduced stocks, rising costs, and market problems. I feel that one of the most urgent matters in need of EEC agreement is a common fisheries policy. The present uncertainty is clearly a barrier to the development because it is causing a natural unwillingness to invest in new boats and processing projects. I hope, therefore, that within the next few months real progress will be made. In my view, it is a reflection on the member states of the Community that no real progress has been made in this area in recent times. There has not been a Council of Fisheries Minister's meeting since last October. This is an indication of the lack of urgency which has been directed towards fisheries in the Community.
I would like to assure the House that I will be pressing for an early agreement. This will have to be an agreement that will meet the needs of our fishing industry and allow it to expand on a realistic basis in the interests of our economy. I will not be prepared to accept an agreement just for the sake of having one.
I am concerned about the marketing regulations agreed on several months ago but not yet operative and unlikely to become operative for some time. I will be pressing for an early operation of this regulation in order to improve the very unsatisfactory market structure at present in operation in the European Community. I am just a short time in the Department and am getting familiar with the various aspects of that Department. I propose to carry out a detailed examination of all facets of the Irish fishing industry, both sea and inland. To that end I hope to have early discussions with BIM, the Central Fisheries Board, the regional boards and I propose to invite in for discussions the national fishery organisations such as the Irish Fishery Organisation, the National Fisheries Council, and to visit at the very earliest opportunity the major fishing centres.
I am sure Deputies opposite will not object if I mention the dumping of fish at sea. Since taking up my appointment one of the major problems brought to my attention has been the dumping of fish. No one is happy to see good fish being dumped back into the sea. There have been some incidents recently of herring being disposed of in this way, having been withdrawn from sale by producer organisations under the EEC intervention rules. The quantities dumped represented a small proportion of the total landings of herring in the ports involved and I think there was a certain amount of exaggeration. Neverthless, I was concerned about this problem and I have directed that every step possible be taken to ensure that the dumping of withdrawn fish should no longer take place, except where it is absolutely unavoidable.
I am satisfied that given the satisfactory agreement of an EEC fishery policy and with the co-operation of the various sectors involved that considerable progress can be made in developing the Irish fishing industry and increasing employment opportunities, even in the short term.
I recommend the Bill to the House.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I would like to take this opportunity to extend a welcome and congratulations to my successor, Deputy Daly, on assuming the position of Minister for Fisheries and Forestry. I hope his time in the Department, whether long or short, will be fruitful so far as the fishing industry is concerned and happy as far as he is concerned. I also congratulate him on having secured the services of a Minister of State and I congratulate Deputy McEllistrim on assuming his new role as Minister of State. One person who was impressed with the burden I had to carry in that Department was my wife. Last night when speaking to her on the phone she said, “I see you were trying to do the job that two men are now doing”. I am glad somebody was impressed by what I was doing. I wish the two Ministers well, although it would be unnatural if I wished them a long reign.
I want to mention the Minister's speech lest a precedent be established. I did not get a copy of it.
These were off-the-cuff remarks.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I was given a copy of part one of his speech but I did not get a copy of the part which dealt with policy matters. I am not complaining or making an issue of this, but I want to go on record as saying that Opposition spokesmen are entitled to the courtesy of these documents which should be circulated.
The object of this Bill, which I introduced on 26 January is to increase the borrowing powers of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara from the Exchequer. At present the total advances that may be outstanding at any one time are limited by legislation to £15 million; the Bill proposes to extend that limit to £40 million. This is an enabling measure. It does not mean that the £40 million will be advanced right away or within a given time. It means that the Exchequer will be enabled, when the Bill becomes law, to make advances totalling £40 million at any one time. As the Minister said, these advances are largely made available and used by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to provide grants to fishermen for the purchase of new boats. The fishing industry is going through a very difficult phase at present and even the most experienced skippers, and those who know their jobs best, find it difficult to repay their loans and to make their jobs pay to discharge their obligations to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.
I am glad the Minister mentioned the common fisheries policy and the fact that a lot depends on the bargain we can hammer out in Europe. I am also glad both Ministers appreciate this fact and hope to get the common fisheries policy agreed upon and formulated. When we entered Europe about ten years ago we knew we would have ups and downs, losses and gains and that we were exposing the industrial manufacturing arm of our economy to competition from abroad. Against that, we hoped our agricultural and fishing industries would benefit to such an extent that we would have a net gain, apart from the handouts or grants we would get from Europe. I want to warn the Minister that he will have a fight on his hands. I am not satisfied that the Irish fishing industry is getting a fair crack of the whip in Europe.
When the European Community was formed it was assumed it would look after the member states before being good to countries which had not joined or submitted themselves to the rules and regulations of the Community. There is too much fish being imported into the Community from outside countries — Norway, Canada and elsewhere. The unfortunate thing is that that fish is being imported in the interests of some member states to the disadvantage of others. It is being imported to the advantage of the big processing and manufacturing states but it is certainly not in our interest. We are a net exporter of the fish in question and will probably have to remain so for some time. During my short time as Minister for Fisheries and Forestry I resisted as hard as I could the importation of this fish. I was amazed when in the dying days of 1981, when people were preparing to celebrate Christmas, both in terms of the religious festival and from the point of view of having a rest, my telephone began to ring loudly and frequently for the purpose of informing me that there was a regulation concerning the importation of fish into the Community that had to be agreed almost immediately. These messages were coming from Dublin, from Britain, who then had the Presidency, and from Brussels. The calls continued on Christmas Eve and I asked the people concerned what they thought they were at. I reminded them that the personnel had left my office for Christmas and that I did not know where they were. I was told then by way of threat that if I did not agree to the package that had been hammered out about the importation of herring into the Community there would be certain consequences. This was at a time when, as the Minister says, we were dumping herring in the sea because we could not get rid of it otherwise. I said that regardless of the consequences I was not agreeing. I was threatened then that there would be a meeting the following week, that this would have to be a ministerial meeting but I was too long in the tooth to think that that would materialise, that Ministers would be brought together in Christmas week. I am merely relating that as an example. I wondered if this was a coincidence or if there was an attempt to rush something through at a time when people would not have advice available to them. In any case, the result of that episode was that after votes of one kind or another and after a number of round robins of which I understand the Minister may be aware, there was agreement to reduce the amount of imported fish though not to reduce it sufficiently.
The Minister will be threatened that if he does not act now there will be consequences for us elsewhere. The whole matter is an undesirable and vicious circle but each part of the economy must be thrashed out on its merits. If we, as a small and not fully developed fishing industry do not get a fair crack of the whip from Brussels, the future of the industry is bleak. However, a fair crack of the whip will not be got without a fight. One could become very disillusioned about what goes on in Europe. One might be threatened by the big nations. The whole thing is somewhat unsavoury.
By and large our fishing boats are small. It is essential that we ensure that foreign boats are kept away from our shores. I wish the Minister luck in dealing with that problem because it involves a tough battle. On assuming office in 1977 one of my predecessors threw in the towel in so far as the 50-mile limit and even the 30-mile limit was concerned. There are large states, France in particular, who have claimed rights even within six miles of our shores. We must put up a solid fight now in that regard. I am glad to hear the Minister say that he will not be party to an agreement merely for the sake of having an agreement. An agreement can be hammered out, an agreement that will afford us an exclusive area around our coast that will not be available to foreign fishermen with their larger boats and their superior skill in some respects. If we agree to a common fisheries policy which does not give us exclusive rights around our shores we will be doing a bad day's work for the fishing industry.
Much of the money we are providing today will be used for the purchase of boats. This brings me to the question of boatyards. My predecessor sold the boatyards that were owned by BIM. They were sold to private enterprise. It is not my intention to go into the question of the merits or otherwise of the bargains that were made in that regard but I am not disagreeing with the sale of the yards. However, I am reserving my comments as to whether the sale was carried out to the best advantage of the State. I object though to the move that seems to be afoot now to nationalise these boatyards again indirectly by way of saying that BIM must make advances for the building of boats if the boatyards are not to perish. This crops up every few months: a boatyard is in trouble and, unless a grant or a loan is given, and given quickly, so many men will be laid off. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are blamed for investigating the proposed borrower too closely and they are blamed for delays.
The Minister will find that the boatyards need to rationalised. There should be sufficient boatyards to build the type of boat our fishermen need. There should be sufficient boatyards to service and repair the boats operating around our shores. I make a present of this to the Minister. He and his Department should not have responsibility for this. The IDA or some other State agency should organise the boatyards. It does not make sense to give the Department of Fisheries and Forestry responsibility for keeping on building boats whether or not they are wanted, under threat of unemployment in the boatyards. These are two different issues.
If the boatyards are to be operated as an employment giving agency, or as a social service, that is one thing, but I do not think it is wise. It is not wise to compel BIM to sanction loans and grants without a full investigation, and without satisfying themselves that the borrowers are skilled people who will be able to operate the boats and get the best out of them. From time to time BIM are pressured into doing this, that or the other. I believe my point of view is the sensible one and that the IDA should organise the boatyards. If grants are necessary, perhaps there is something to be said for giving them grants to bring them up to a certain standard, but only if the IDA believe the boatyards are being run properly and that management will do a good job.
The most important problem the Minister will have to deal with will arise in Europe. He will have to ensure that the big states live up to their responsibility to a small country like this. We were led to believe that if we joined the EEC the agricultural industry and the fishing industry would benefit. This is an enabling Bill. I do not want to say any more at this stage. We will have an opportunity on the Estimate or on some other occasion to have a longer debate on this topic.
(Donegal South-West): A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, ar an chéad dul síos ba mhaith liom comhgairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire Stáit agus an Aire Iascaigh agus Foraoiseachta agus guím gach rath ar an obair atá á déanamh ag an mbeirt acu. I wish to congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State on their appointments to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. This is a difficult time for the fishing industry. As two men from the west coast of Ireland they know well the difficult task facing them.
I welcome this Bill which increases the borrowing powers of BIM from £15 million to £40 million. Now that the figure of £15 million set out in the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1974, has been reached, it is important that this Bill should be enacted as quickly as possible to allow BIM to continue with the development of our sea fishing industry. I want to take this opportunity to make some observations on this industry which is of vital importance to people living along our coast, and in particular in the constituency which I represent.
The mere fact that we now have a Minister for Fisheries who has the assistance of a Minister of State demonstrates the importance of this industry and the importance the Fianna Fáil Government place on the fishing and forestry industries. It is heartening that these two Ministers come from the west coast. A short few months ago we had very few Ministers from the west coast. There was a concentrated attack against the west by the Coalition Government. We thought the Pale had been extended and that there was no west coast of Ireland. The Taoiseach saw fit to appoint a Minister and a Minister of State to show that, so far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, the people of the west are just as important as the people of the city of Dublin or any other part of the country.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Galway did not do too well.
(Donegal South-West): While this increase in the borrowing power of BIM is vital to the industry now that the figure of £15 million is about to be surpassed, it will not cure the many serious ills, but it will help to alleviate some of the many problems facing the industry. This increase in borrowing power will give BIM a greater opportunity to invest more in boats in the form of grants and loans for fishermen, to enable them to purchase new and secondhand boats and to assist them in the conversion of the many boats which are almost obsolete. I expect an increase in investment in smaller boats such as half deckers which are vitally important in my constituency where we depend on salmon, lobster, white fish, crabs and the drift netting of herrings. Assistance may be needed to instal more modern equipment in some boats. Hopefully this will be forthcoming, subject to scrutiny by the Department and BIM.
I hope also that a greater degree of interest will be shown in the 50-foot to 60-foot range which, of necessity, are more versatile. I strongly advocate that substantial grants and loans should be made available from the extra moneys which are being provided, not only for the purchase of boats in the 60-foot to 85-foot range, but more importantly for the conversion of this range of 65 to 80-foot boats so that they could use them for another type of fishing. This other type of fishing is one to which the skippers are well accustomed but for which unfortunately at present their boats are not equipped. I am referring to the seineing method of fishing. These boats are at present equipped for trawling of herrings, white fish and mackerel when the mackerel are near our coast. Unfortunately at present they are sited a distance from our coast which means these boats are unable to catch them.
With the conservation measures implemented I would hope that stocks of herrings would return to their state of some years past when there were plenty to be found off our coasts. The herrings at present being landed are difficult to sell, this is because of cheaper imports from Canada and the supply of fresh herring fillets to the German market from Denmark. It is unfortunate that discussions have been taking place in Brussels prior to the Minister's appointment in regard to the licensing of the importation of something in the region of 80,000 to 84,000 tonnes of herring flaps or fillets duty free to the Continent. It is difficult to condone this practice while herring along our coast are being dumped. I am sure the Minister will investigate the problem and do his utmost to ensure that such quantity will not be imported into the European Continent during the coming year. One wonders whether continentals have a vested interest in fishing boats off the Canadian coast. One wonders also whether the Germans are using their muscle at the EEC table to ensure that they get these 80,000 to 84,000 tonnes. I am confident that the Minister, like his predecessors, will have this industry at heart and will do his utmost to ensure that such importation does not occur.
We must also examine the situation in order that the Danes are not allowed to have the same withdrawal prices as we have here. We must accept that we are on the periphery of Europe and must compete at the same withdrawal prices as the Danes and those in the South of England despite the fact that we are situated two sea crossings from the main continental markets. These are two expensive sea crossings rendering our products that much less competitive.
A common fisheries policy is vital but I wonder how serious are our European counterparts when they speak of a common fisheries policy and of working in harmony. I sincerely believe that it is not in the interests of our European counterparts to achieve a common fisheries policy in the near future. Later I hope to give my reasons for so saying and to suggest alternatives. I feel one should not take a negative approach and I shall be suggesting alternatives to be studied in the interim period.
I spoke earlier of boats between 65 and 80 feet and said they were almost obsolete. However, I believe steps can be taken to ensure that they will not become obsolete so that their skippers will not become bankrupt and there will be longer dole queues within this industry. If additional moneys are made available by way of grants and loans for the conversion of these boats — and here I emphasise their size of between 65 and 80 feet which do not have the power to catch the mackerel which constitute our main market at present — for sea net purposes, this would be most beneficial because this method is much less expensive and quite effective. This method also reduces oil expenses by half. For example, a 65-foot boat would use 1,000 gallons in a normal four-day week. This sea net method also is less expensive on gear and affords these white fishing boats an opportunity to fish grounds which could not be fished were they using trawl net gear. The usage of this type of net also lessens the risk of their being damaged. The conversion of this type of boat from trawl to trawl and seine — which will not be a complete conversion but one of a versatile nature so that they can be used for both trawling and seineing — would cost something in the region of £55,000 to £65,000. Boats at present almost obsolete would cost in the region of £350,000 to £500,000. Is it not realistic, therefore, to take the obvious plunge and invest a further £55,000 to £65,000 ensuring that boats are converted from a loss-making operation to a profit-making one.
I am not preaching doom or gloom but it is a fact that practically all fishermen would sell their boats in the 65 to 80 foot range at present if there was a market for them. For the reasons stated earlier there is no such market for them. I believe fishermen would not sell their boats were they presented with an attractive package of grants and loans for their conversion. I should add that I am not merely trying to make a strong case because I represent a constituency with a lot of fishermen. The fact is that these fishermen need this money. They are not beggars and would not have their boats tied up if they were able to make sufficient money to ensure that their crews and skippers made a reasonable income each week. Perhaps the Minister would assist these men by way of grants and loans not alone for reequipment but for gear as well because it can be very costly. If substantial loans and grants were made available for equipment with none for gear, in my view that would constitute a retrograde step. I believe such assistance would stimulate enthusiasm amongst skippers generally. I have no doubt also but that it would revitalise the white fishing industry.
I sincerely hope some grants and loans will be made available in the not too distant future bearing in mind that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara will soon have their increased borrowing powers. Speaking of the conversion of these white fishing boats from trawling to trawling and/or seining, perhaps it might be suggested that a study group should be established to examine the feasibility of a concentrated commercial fisheries. However, I suggest that such would not be necessary as the solution is abundantly clear, which I hope I have made reasonably clear to the House. I hazard the guess that by the time any such study group would have reached the recommendation stage it would be already a little too late. The problem must be tackled immediately and, if necessary, the board should recruit additional staff on a temporary basis to process these applications. There would not be very many applications but if extra staff were needed to expedite them they should be provided. Some may think that the changeover in the boats will create a problem in the processing of white fish as only a few of the major firms process white fish. This is because of the lack of continuity of supply. I have no doubt that regular and continuous landings will ensure that the processors will respond as they have done in the past. If the steps I have suggested are taken I am sure this continuity will be maintained. If the Department implement those steps, grants and loans could be made available at an early stage. I am sure that if the landings are regular there will be no problem with the marketing of the fish.
The conversion of the boats is one of the major problems facing the industry. I make a special plea to the Minister and to the Minister of State to study this matter as quickly as possible. I appreciate that the Minister of State has just been appointed to his post but I am sure he will ask his officials to give consideration to this matter as soon as possible.
We must not forget that the skippers of the larger boats got their training in the white fisheries grounds. The question must be asked where we will train the future skippers for our larger boats. If the conversion of the boats takes place we know that the training grounds that were used in the past by the skippers of today will continue to be used. I suggest that the grant should not be a direct handout but should be done over a phased period, say over four or five years. This would ensure an increase for the skippers and crews during the initial and possibly difficult transition period.
The 100 ft. to 135 ft. refrigerated seawater tank boats are the only profitable boats at the moment and they are involved in our mackerel landings. We must decide if further such boats are to be grant-aided. We should forge ahead with this size of boat and the 25 per cent grant that is available to successful applicants should be supplemented by FEOGA grants. We should exert pressure on the EEC to ensure that such grants are made available. I am of the opinion that such grants are not available for such boats, although I am open to contradiction on this point. These boats cost approximately £2 million and it is very difficult for skippers to obtain this kind of money. We should make a case to the EEC that FEOGA grants are essential.
Half-deckers or small boats are very numerous along the western seaboard and many families depend on them. In the past two years FEOGA grants have not been available for these vessels. One wonders if the EEC are interested only in the larger boats. I understand that grant applications are on file for many years and I ask the Minister to make a special case to the EEC so that the small boats may be considered for FEOGA grants. Many families depend on these half-deckers for their livelihood. The crews of such boats are as important as the crews of the larger boats.
At the moment there is an abundance of mackerel off our coasts and it is the most lucrative fishing in the EEC. It is unfortunate for us that we have such lucrative fishing grounds because they attract so many foreign boats. It is the only fishery ground in Europe that is attracting what we must call the sharks from Europe. Our major factories are dependent on mackerel and it is important that we protect our fisheries. This is a priority and an obligation on us. If the Germans, Danes, British and the Dutch are permitted to continue over-fishing, our stocks will be decimated and the death knell of the industry will be sounded in the not too distant future. It is only a few months ago since 27 Dutch boats of 200 ft. and over were off the Staggs of Broadhaven. They were not there to view the west coast of Ireland but to catch the maximum quantity of mackerel. It is estimated that 650,000 tonnes were taken from the fisheries during the past few years. That is a ridiculously high figure when we compare it with the total catch permitted by the EEC. The experts say that 650,000 tonnes is more than twice the total catch which should be taken from our fisheries if we want to sustain our stock of mackerel. Unfortunately this is the only and most lucrative mackerel fishery in Europe. It is the last remaining stock of pelagic fish in Europe and we have an obligation to ensure its preservation so that our fishermen will get a livelihood from it for decades to come.
When we consider the question of over-fishing we do not need to look further than the Celtic Sea and the south-west coast of England for examples of what can happen if that is permitted. They had lucrative mackerel fishing grounds but they were over-fished. If we allow foreigners to continue as they are doing we will be in the same position.
It is a wonder we did not protect ourselves in 1972.
(Donegal South-West): As a new Member I am not fully au fait with the rules of the House but I should like to know if I am permitted to continue.
The Deputy is an innocent man; Donegal innocence.
The Deputy is entitled to proceed, without interruption.
(Donegal South-West): I should like to suggest some alternatives because I do not believe we will have a common fisheries policy for some years to come as such a policy is not in the best interests of other members of the EEC. The obvious solution is to ensure that all foreign boats fishing off our coasts are licensed and that they have an observer on board them at all times. I suggest that the observer should be from BIM or the the Department. It should be the duty of that observer to ensure that foreign trawlers take only their quota. He could also build up vitally important scientific information such as is being done in Canada. He would be in a position to suggest the best type of gear for certain areas, give the water temperature and the depth at which the fish were caught. The observer could also give information as to the plankton content of the water and the spawning areas. That information would be valuable to the Government and the EEC and it would not cost very much to obtain. It is an alternative which could be used pending the implementation of a common fisheries policy but could continue when that policy is implemented for the purpose of feeding that vital information to Dublin and Brussels. We would be in a position to know the total catch we should allow so that we can sustain our fisheries for decades to come. It is a simple and straight-forward solution.
In my view that is the only effective way forward and it can be implemented without a common fisheries policy. It would be advantageous to Ireland and the EEC. We must do everything to ensure that that lucrative fishery off the west coast is protected in the interests of Irish fishermen. We should make a special case to the EEC in relation to our fisheries. I do not believe it is in the spirit of the Treaty of Rome to have any contry's raw material stocks decimated. If we had a proper management system in relation to fisheries our fishermen could continue to get a livelihood from that area indefinitely. We should make a special case to get greater protection. If foreign boats limited their catch to a certain tonnage that fishery could be maintained. One suggestion we should make is that an observer be permitted to go on board to check on the extent of the catch. We are all aware of what happened to our herring stocks because of the activities of some fishermen from other European countries. I hope we learned from that.
We had also the experience in Dunmore East where Dutch fishermen exploited our waters and processed our fish by salting them until they got them to Holland. That was not of any value to Ireland and did not mean the creation of any employment here. In dealing with mackerel one must refer to the freezer boats that operate off our coast in the season. They freeze and process the mackerel landed by our boats at Castle-townbere, Galway, Killybegs, Burton-port and Rathmullen. It is unfortunate that we cannot process all that fish, but we must be realistic and accept that it is not profitable or practicable to process all that fish here. In my view it would take £150 million to provide freezing facilities for the processing of that fish without taking into consideration the question of marketing. Should we invest that amount of money in processing facilities which would be obsolete for six months each year? Fishermen in Scotland and England in recent years have had to avail of such factory ships also. People may get the impression that I welcome the presence of such ships but it is a qualified welcome. If they were not available the fishing industry would be a lot worse off.
