Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 9 Jul 1982

Vol. 337 No. 8

Estimates, 1982 (Resumed). - Vote 35: Fisheries.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £19,574,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1982, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, including sundry grants-in-aid.

With your permission, Sir, I propose that the traditional practice of discussing the Fisheries and Forestry Estimates simultaneously be followed — in which case I shall move the Forestry Estimate when the debate concludes.

These Estimates were of course settled by the previous Government and as a result of their efforts to reduce overall expenditure the Fisheries Estimate shows a decrease of £620,000 as compared with last year's Vote.

The overrall decrease is due mainly to a reduction of £1,899,990 in An Bord Iascaigh Mhara's capital development grant. Increases have occurred in the grant for sea fisheries development, inland fisheries development and the grant-in-aid for the Salmon Research Trust of Ireland Incorporated, and the provision for the repayment of advances.

While, as Minister responsible, I would like to see greater expenditure on our fisheries and particularly on inland fishery development, I must accept that fisheries is receiving a fair share of the available resources.

The value of domestic landings of sea fish in 1981, excluding salmon landings, amounted to £35.4 million as against £28.9 million in 1980 an increase of 18 per cent. In addition there were landings into foreign ports valued in excess of £5 million. The total quantity of fish landed at home ports in 1981 was approximately 177,000 tonnes. This is a record figure and represents an increase of 42.000 tonnes over the 1980 catch.

The value of exports of all fish and fishery products has reached the record figure of £51 million as compared with £41 million in 1980, representing an increase of 24 per cent. Over 60 firms are involved in fish processing operations employing about 1,700 people. A total of 27 projects, incorporating either new processing plants or extensions to existing ones were approved for grant purposes in the calendar year 1981 involving a total capital investment of £7.4 million including State investment of £2.86 million.

The large increase on our catch last year is clear evidence of the capabilities of our fishermen who can now compete on the fishing grounds with their counterparts from other fishing nations. Unfortunately, unit prices did not keep pace with the increase in landings but prices, I am glad to say, are for most varieties showing an upward trend. Mackerel, of course, was the main contributor to the increased catch and our processors, exporters and fishermen deserve congratulations for the fact that virtually all landings of mackerel were disposed of for human consumption. It is true, of course, that large quantities of mackerel were purchased for freezing aboard eastern European freezer trawlers. There are those who say that this processing should take place ashore in Ireland and that is our ultimate aim. However, pending the full development of our processing facilities the freezer trawlers can provide a useful outlet subject, of course, to proper control and monitoring of their activities.

As I said in the House during the debate on the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, what the fishing industry now needs is confidence. I aim to give it that confidence. I have already had discussions with the main representative organisations in the industry and it is my intention, following further discussions with those bodies and in consultation with BIM, to produce a new fisheries development programme. A greater emphasis on refurbishing of the existing fleet, increased productivity and particularly on marketing will form part of such programme.

The grant-in-aid to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara for 1982 for administration and current developments amounts to £5,010,000 and the grant-in-aid for capital development amounts to £3,500,000. Additional funds are available by way of repayable advances from the Central Fund, a line of credit from financial institutions and the Board's own resources to meet the demand by fishermen for loans for boats, gear, etc. In addition to subvention towards the purchase of boats and gear the board's grant-in-aid for capital development also covers the provisions of services to the fishing industry such as ice plants and training facilities and grants for mariculture. While it appears the grants available will be sufficient to provide grants under the BIM marine credit plan for all suitably qualified applicants making application, there will be a shortfall in repayable advances, something that should have been foreseen by the previous Government when the Estimates were approved.

Interest in aquaculture in Ireland has grown rapidly in recent years, especially in the area of marine aquaculture, with the emphasis on oyster, mussel and escallop cultivation. Although marine species such as oysters and mussels have been raised artificially for many years, their culture is a relatively new technology with continuing developments in methods of culture and this experimentation along with cultivation in new untried areas requires a period of testing and evaluation before success can be assured.

The continuance of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara's mariculture grant scheme geared to the development of fish farming projects again played a significant role in the development of this sector. Last year, the value of production was £1.8 million, this year it is expected to be well in excess of £2 million. This is an area where progress is possible and I am examining ways and means of accelerating our mariculture development. We have many advantages in Ireland in this field but careful planning and research is essential to ensure success.

A sum of £4.15 million has been included in the Estimate for fishery harbour works. This provision will be expended mainly on the on-going development schemes at the major fishery harbour centres at Howth and Killybegs. Work is being or will be undertaken at 12 other locations including Castletownbere. Rossaveal, Schull, Cahirciveen, Portevlin, Kilcummin and Killala. Now that the development of the five major fishery harbour centres is nearing completion, it will be possible in the future to give more attention to minor harbours and landing places.

The Central and Regional Fisheries Boards, which were set up in October 1980 continue to work for the better conservation, protection and development of every aspect of our inland fisheries. The first elections to regional fisheries boards were held in December 1981 and the seats on the central and regional boards are now filled. The membership of each regional board represents the various fishery interests in the region.

Under section 32 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, the introduction of a staff scheme for the staff of the central and regional boards is well under way and a draft scheme is with the unions concerned. Also, I am glad to say that a superannuation scheme for the staff of the central and regional boards is at an advanced stage and is at present with the unions. It is hoped to be able to introduce this scheme shortly, a long overdue scheme which will give continuity of employment and security to staffs of the regional boards.

The most important aspects of our inland fisheries is our salmon fisheries. Provisional figures for 1981 show that the total weight of the salmon catch by all fishing methods was 655 metric tonnes valued at £2.3 million as compared with 895 metric tonnes in 1980 valued at £3.2 million. The overall weight of our salmon catch in 1981 showed a fall of almost 27 per cent on the 1980 catch which in turn was 16 per cent below the catch of 1,073 metric tonnes in 1979. This decline in recent years continues to be a cause for great concern. For my part I am committed to the full enforcement of the law against illegal salmon fishing and the Department have again arranged for vessels of the Naval Service to patrol our salmon fisheries during the present season in support of the fisheries protection staff of the regional boards and the Garda. Unfortunately, a work to rule by the protection staff reduced the protection provided for a period to an unacceptable level but I am pleased to say that the dispute has now been settled.

As Deputies will be aware the salmon levy has been discontinued from 1 June, 1982. A total of £280,000 in levy has been collected to date. While the levy was not acceptable to the industry there is general agreement that those who benefit from the development of our inland fisheries should contribute towards the cost of this development with the State, which is contributing £4.4 million in the current year.

As the time available to me is limited I will conclude my remarks on fisheries by a brief reference to the discussions on the EEC Common Fisheries Policy. There has been little progress since the matter was discussed in this House recently. The most recent meeting of the Council of Ministers failed to resolve the outstanding issues. I made it clear to the Council that the present Commission proposals were completely inadequate as far as Ireland is concerned and as a result of my stand, improved quotas for a number of species have been proposed for Ireland. Another meeting of the council is due to be held within the next two weeks and I can promise the House that I will continue to work to the limit of my ability to obtain a satisfactory policy for the Irish fishing industry.

I will now deal with the Forestry Estimate. The nett amount required this year —£34,787,000, represents an increase of £767,000 — or only 2 per cent — as compared with last year. The increase, which is mainly due to higher salaries and wages, the introduction of grants payable under the western development scheme and the increased cost of services, is partly offset by an increase of £1.65 million in appropriations-in-aid.

Some of the subheads provide for roughly the same level of activity as last year and do not call for any special comment but if Deputies want detailed information about them I will be happy to provide it in my reply. I will therefore concentrate for the most part on the other provisions in the Estimate.

Subhead A.1 — £9,580,000 provides for the salaries, wages and allowances of the Forest and Wildlife Service administrative and technical personnel. There is an increase of £59,410 compared with last year. Increases arising from the current agreement on pay in the public service will be provided for in the global vote for Increases in Remuneration.

Subhead B.1 — £2,164,000 provides for travelling and incidental expenses and shows an increase of £619,000 on last year's allocation. Heavy expenditure on travel — which is unavoidable, given the dispersed nature of the forests, is essential if field operations, including supervision of a large workforce, are to be efficiently carried out.

Subhead B.2 — £659,000 relates to the cost of postal and telecommunication services. The substantial increase of £422,700 this year, is due to the cost of operating the switchboard service at the Department's new offices in Leeson Lane, increased postal charges, and the provision of new telex services.

Subhead C.1 — £3,200,000 is a grant-in-aid for the acquisition of land. The balance in the acquisition fund at 31 December 1981, viz £653,000, together with £3.2 million now being provided should bring in about 18,000 acres in the current year. The level of land acquisition in recent years has been quite unsatisfactory — especially having regard to the existing land reserve situation which, as well as being unevenly distributed, is now at a very low level. The pattern of funding for the current year's acquisition programme was set by the previous administration and the maximum use is being made of it. However, since land acquisition is the life-blood of the afforestation programme I am less than happy with the degree of funding for the purpose. The provision of adequate finance for the acquisition programme in the years immediately ahead is something to which I will be giving serious consideration.

Subhead C.2: Forest Development and Management — £24,348,000 — accounts for the bulk of expenditure in the Forestry Vote. The major proportion of the expenditure relates to wages. The increase, viz. £1,072,300, over the 1981 provision, is accounted for by wage increases, higher cost of machinery and materials, and increased cost of repair and maintenance of the forest machinery fleet. The national forest estate now embraces 377,000 hectares (930,000 acres) of land, of which 304,000 hectares (751,000 acres) have been planted. The activities covered by the subhead include the production of nursery stock; the establishment, maintenance and protection of State plantations; the provision of public recreation facilities; the purchase, maintenance and hire of machinery; the construction of forest roads; and the whole field of timber harvesting and conversion.

The level of activity being provided for is roughly comparable with last year's performance. I would like, however to make particular comment on some aspects falling under Subhead C.2. As regards employment, the Forestry workforce now represents about 2,700 men — usually in areas where alternative employment prospects are poor.

As regards the planting programme, the overall objective of the State afforestation programme is 10,000 hectares (25,000 acres) per year but it has not been possible to attain this target in recent years — due largely to difficulties in the land acquisition sector and the unsatisfactory position of the land reserve which I have already mentioned. As a result, the area planted annually has been of the order of 7,000 hectares (17,500 acres) and it is expected that the current year's planting programme will be at about a similar level. The Government are currently reviewing the situation in regard to the State planting programme with a view to settling policy for the years immediately ahead. The stage is now being reached in Irish forestry where past investment is beginning to show a significant return. With emphasis on timber harvesting now becoming more pronounced, the provision of adequate funds for forest roads and harvesting machinery assumes paramount importance. It is intended to maintain the construction programme for new roads at last year's expanded level, and the repair and reconstruction of existing forest roads damaged by heavy extraction vehicles during last winter's bad weather will also be priority items. While the updating and replacement of some of the fleet used by the Forest and Wildlife Service is an ongoing business, only the most essential of the used machines are being replaced this year but some funds may be allocated for the purchase of additional specialised timber harvesting equipment with a view to fulfilling commitments to the various elements of the timber industry.

The medium density fibreboard mill at Clonmel which is being built by the Medford Corporation of Oregon, USA, is now well advanced and production is expected to begin by summer 1983. When at full production this plant will employ 200 workers in the factory and a further 250 in timber harvesting.

Some funds are also provided for the development of forest parks and the provision of general amenity and recreational facilities in State forests. The largest element of the expenditure is in respect of labour employed in the maintenance of existing parks and amenities and tends to increase annually in line with labour and other costs. The "Open Forest" policy, under which the public are encouraged to use State forests for recreational purposes, is now in operation for over ten years. During that time eight forest parks have been created and three more are in course of development. In addition, at some 400 forest locations, parking, picnicking, forest walks and other amenity facilities have been provided. The demand for recreational use of forests continues to grow and the number of visitors remains very high but in the current financial situation some slow down in the rate of new developments is inevitable.

The final part of subhead C.2 relates to timber conversion and includes provision for the employment of harvesting contractors to supplement the Department's direct timber harvesting and harvesting operations by customers who purchase standing timber. This traditional pattern of contract harvesting provides a worthwhile service industry for the wood-processing and sawmilling sectors.

The purpose of subhead C.4 is to provide a measure of grant assistance to Chipboard Products Limited at Scarriff, County Clare. The House will recall that in 1980 a sum of £400,000 was provided to enable the receiver at Chipboard Limited (in Receivership) to continue operations for a limited period while proposals for restructuring the company were being considered. This restructuring took place last year when a new company, Chipboard Products Limited, in which the State holds some 64 per cent of the equity, was formed. In this context details of the agreements entered into with a private consortium were given to the House by one of my predecessors when he introduced the 1981 main and Supplementary Estimates for Forestry on 26 March 1981 and are recorded in the Dáil Report, Vol. 328, Columns 26-264. The new company have been in operation since May 1981 and the grant assistance of £919,000 now proposed is intended partly for capital development purposes and partly to meet the cost of subventing timber harvesting operations in accordance with the terms of the restructuring arrangements. However, I should say that the company are continuing to feel the effects of severe competition from imported chipboard and the situation generally is being kept under review.

The provision of grants for private planting in subhead D shows an increase of £375,000 over last year, largely explained by the necessity to provide funds for the forestry element of the EEC western package which came into operation on 15 April, 1981. This scheme, in which the emphasis is on private forestry, envisages the afforestation in the west of Ireland, over a period of ten years, of 24,000 hectares of land which is marginal for agriculture but suitable for forestry. The total expenditure under the scheme for the ten-year period is £18 million, which is to be shared equally between the EEC (FEOGA) and the Irish Government. Grants are available up to a maximum of approximately £800 per hectare and a free technical advisory service on all aspects of the forestry operation will be provided by my Department.

I need hardly stress that the planting of trees is an activity which is very beneficial from the national standpoint. I would hope that, despite a somewhat slow start, there will be a more enthusiastic response to the western package scheme from owners of suitable land in western areas and that it will, as time passes, lead to a significant increase in the level of private forestry in this country. The traditional private planting grants scheme will, of course, continue to operate as heretofore in the rest of the country.

The modest increase in subhead G this year is due entirely to increases in remuneration of wildlife rangers. Forty-nine rangers are now employed by the Forest and Wildlife Service and, while their duties extend to enforcement of all aspects of the Wildlife Act, their primary preoccupation is with hunting and poaching offences and illegal trade in wildlife species.

Subhead G also includes provision for grants to regional game councils to assist local schemes of game development and also a small measure of assistance towards the development of game shooting facilities for visiting sportsmen.

Subhead H provides funds for wildlife conservation. The programme of work in that field is proceeding reasonably well despite the inevitable effects of present financial constraints on some activities. The two major elements of the 1982 programmes are wildlife research and habitat protection. A variety of research projects is being carried out. The results of a recent survey on the peregrine falcon, undertaken with the welcome assistance of the Irish Wildbird Conservancy, should be available later this year.

I am happy to report a measure of progress in the establishment of statutory nature reserves. Eight such reserves have already been established and I expect that number to increase to at least a dozen during the current year. It is particularly pleasing to be able to report the fairly recent completion of the purchase of the largest and key area of Pollardstown Fen in County Kildare.

I would not like to let this occasion pass without paying a well deserved tribute to the work of the Wildlife Advisory Council whose critical analysis of, and advice on, a wide variety of wildlife conservation topics is greatly valued by me.

I have already mentioned enforcement of the Wildlife Act, and the role of wildlife rangers. Over the past five years, upwards of 270 successful prosecutions have been taken under the Act. However, it is vitally important that the role of the wildlife rangers be complemented and supported by the promotion of public education and knowledge of wildlife matters. The Forest and Wildlife Service already have a wide range of wildlife literature which is distributed free on request and it is hoped to produce some further publications of interest, especially to school children, during the year.

Participation by the Forest and Wildlife Service in international conservation activities is achieved through active involvement in organisations such as the EEC and the Council of Europe, and, where appropriate, in their work in the sphere of international conventions and regulations relating to the protection of wildlife, especially migratory species.

Subhead I provides mainly for a number of programmes undertaken for my Department by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. These are concerned with the promotion of the use of home grown timber and the advancement of timber technology research. The proposed increase in the subhead reflects the fact that only a token sum was provided for this purpose last year. This gave rise to some criticism and following a review of the situation in the meantime, it was decided to reactivate some of the institute's work of promoting the increased use of native timber, particularly in the construction sector. The other major element in subhead I is the provision of funds towards the activities of the Wildlife Advisory Council, to which I have already referred.

In subhead J, appropriations in aid, the main element of the forecast of income accruing to the Forest and Wildlife Service during the year relates to timber sales. The present market situation is such that the immediate opportunities for increasing revenue from timber sales are limited and subhead J inevitably reflects this temporarily unsatisfactory situation.

The domestic market for pulpwood is still depressed and some temporary measures, including sale of raw material for export, must still be tolerated in order to generate income, maintain employment and ensure continuity of trained harvesting personnel. However, maintenance of the existing outlet at the restructured Scarriff mill, assuming its current difficulties are temporary, and the operations of the new fibreboard industry at Clonmel will provide a sound basis in the years ahead for the development of a steady market for smaller produce.

Sawlog prices are governed by the level of activity in the building industry as well as by competitive imports and have fallen steadily in the last year. However, in anticipation of an upturn in the market, I hope that projected income will be realised, perhaps through bigger sales volumes, albeit at more moderate prices.

Looking at the situation in the longer term I believe that current problems in the timber sales sector are temporary. It is accepted that wood will continue to be a scarce resource, not only in the European Economic Community but worldwide; and I am quite confident that, as the present general recession eases, the policy of maintaining production of such a versatile renewable resource will be fully vindicated.

I have now dealt with the Estimates for Fisheries and Forestry in some detail and I commend both Estimates to the House for approval.

I intend to comply with the agreement reached between the Whips by restricting my speech to 30 minutes but the time is not sufficient to deal with Estimates of this nature. At a later date the Minister might give us the opportunity to debate these matters more fully.

The Minister complained recently about our inexperience in putting down a motion while he was involved in delicate negotiations. I do not accept that. Our Government were involved in those negotiations a short time previously and the negotiations were carried out in a good spirit.

I am dissapointed with the Minister's attitude to the question of fishing limits. This is an important issue and the decision taken will have long-term effects on the fishing industry. I intend to bring to the Minister's attention the present position in regard to the 12-mile limit. We made the point quite clearly that the Minister must insist on, and not accept less than a 12-mile limit. I want to bring to the attention of the House the European Parliament Working Documents for 1980-81. No doubt the Minister and his officials have these documents before them and they should be gone into. An important section, No. 7, of that document dealing with the general principles for fishing limits, states:

(c) outside a three-mile limit all Community fishermen should have the same access to fishing grounds. For certain particularly dependent areas protective measures may be adopted by the Community for local fishermen. These safeguards may take the form of an extension of the three-mile limit up to a maximum of 12 miles....

It also mentions certain technical measures such as increased quotas of catches. From the same section I quote:

(a) the necessity for a comprehensive system which takes account of social as well as economic factors, and the impact of Community decisions on particular fishing communities, and on jobs directly and indirectly linked to fisheries or aquaculture.

(b) the need to pay due regard to the dependence of particular regions on fishing and to the contribution which fishing can make to the wellbeing of the poorer and more peripheral regions of the Community as recognised in The Hague Agreement of 1976, together with the losses suffered by Community fishermen in third country waters,

These matters were very clearly pointed out during the last debate and brought no reaction from the Minister, which disappointed me very much. There is no need for me to go through The Hague Agreement again. Its contents have been spelt out absolutely clearly. I quote now from the Minister's speech this morning:

I made it clear to the Council that the present Commission proposals were completely inadequate as far as Ireland is concerned and as a result of my stand improved quotas for a number of species have been proposed for Ireland.

This is not sufficient. There is no use telling the fishermen that they will get extra quotas of fish. The Minister must insist on the 12-mile limit. It galls me to read the document which is before the Minister at the moment. The French, in particular, have dominated this debate. They have so much right to our waters at present that they will clean them out and our fishermen have no hope of competing against them. The Minister must change his stance and insist that these traditional rights agreements be phased out over a fixed period of five to ten years. These agreements have been built up over a period of years. The French have spent £290.5 million in modernising their fleet during the last ten years, to build up their case for these traditional rights at the end of 1982. The Minister must fight their case with every breath in his body. It is absolutely essential, for the long-term development of our fishing industry that the Minister make the right decision in these negotiations. This morning he barely mentioned the EEC agreements. He can talk about expanding our fleet and development of one type or another but unless he gets a satisfactory and adequate agreement for our fishermen on these negotiations the long-term effect will be disastrous. The Minister knows this perfectly well, he comes from a fishing county.

We cannot allow fishing fleets from France, in particular, Denmark and all the other EEC countries to fish our coastal waters. The six-mile limit is not acceptable. If we cannot get the 12-mile limit we cannot expand our fleet. The Minister says that we can do so if we get adequate quotas, but he is wrong. The development of our fishing industry is starting from a very low base. The other countries have at least a ten year start on us. As regards the phasing out of the traditional rights, the Minister may wonder why I mention a period of from five to ten years. I know, having taken part in some of these negotiations, that these people will argue that their fishermen got a living from our waters and that they built up these traditional rights. That is the weak argument which will be put up. The Minister should be well able to argue, in turn, that they invested heavily in their fishing fleet in order to build up these traditional rights, but that we cannot any longer accept them.

The Hague Agreement clearly states:

Dr. Garret FitzGerald, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, won the following four concessions:

Ireland would be treated as a special case as far as fishing was concerned requiring privileged treatment by comparison with other countries, including Britain.

We were to be allowed to double our catch between 1976 and 1979—

The Minister may make the point which he made the last time that we have done so.

——and to continue to increase it rapidly thereafter.

That is important.

We were given the right to take unilateral conservative measures in the interests of preserving stocks until such time as a Common Fisheries Policy was agreed.

I bring the Minister's notice to an article in The Irish Times of July 3 1982, written by Albert Reynolds, which mentioned that 79 per cent of our fish may be given away:

As the EEC countries come close to an agreement on a Common Fisheries Policy, it is clear that Ireland is to get less than 4 per cent of the total EEC fish quota — and worse still, Irish trawlers will be able to take only 21 per cent of the catch in Irish waters.

That is an important, well-written and researched article which states the unfair terms being negotiated at the moment. We have a good coastline but a poor fishing fleet with certain problems, financial and otherwise, facing them at the moment. The Minister has a moral obligation to secure for them the 12-mile limit and to ask these other countries to phase out their traditional rights. In my book, these traditional rights are nonsense.

During my preparations for this debate, I came across some EEC documents. The EEC Council decision taken on 25 July 1978 authorised Community expenditure for Denmark and Ireland between January 1977 and 31 December 1982 for short and medium term measures connected with introducing sophisticated facilities appropriate to inspection and surveillance of fishing activities. I was trying to find the results of that decision. There is another document before the EEC at present which states:

The implementation of the medium term measures in Ireland have been delayed because of the complexity of designing new facilities, which must be particularly sophisticated to ensure total effectiveness in the inspection and surveillance of very large fishing areas.

Since the programme drawn up by Ireland and approved by the Commission decision of 15 May 1979 cannot be fully implemented by 1 January 1983, the Commission considers that it would be in the Community's interests to extend this date so that the planned work can be completed and Community participation in the expenditure involved can be ensured.

To facilitate the implementation the Commission feel there should be provision for the Community to make advance payments to Ireland as and when investment is made to fulfil the programme approved by the Commission.

The Commission, therefore, invites the Council to adopt the attached draft decision amending Council decision 78/640/EEC of 25 July 1978 on financial participation by the Community in inspecting and surveillance operations in the maritime waters of Denmark and Ireland.

These finances were given to us to carry out certain developments. The Danes spent the necessary funds but I should like to inquire why we did not utilise them. According to the submission which is before the EEC at present we have not complied with the draft resolution. Surely any moneys given to us by the EEC should be spent. The decision was taken as far back as 25 July 1978. It is now 1982.

The fishing fleet are experiencing very serious financial difficulties at present. Some measures were taken to assist trawler men with repayments by reducing interest rates and carrying over interest in principal without any increase in interest. I give the Department credit for that. It is more than some of the other financial institutions attached to the State are doing. It is not sufficient, however. If we are to extend our fishing fleet and consolidate our position, particularly with these new agreements, we will require a four-year programme. Interest rates and the high cost of diesel, which is the main source of energy used in the fishing industry, will have to be subsidised. There should be an interest subsidy of 10 per cent for a minimum of two years to allow fishermen get over the serious financial difficulty in which they find themselves.

It could be said that this is an extreme action but fishing is one of the growth areas of the economy. It was necessary to bring in such a scheme in agriculture because interest rates were far too high and so was the inflation rate. It is essential to have such a scheme. The Minister should give some consideration to this suggestion. I have information to the effect that the French have now introduced new subsidies. They have continually subsidised the fishing fleet. We have not done so. Our fishing fleet must compete with the French on the open market. We have a problem as far as marketing is concerned. At certain times there is a flood of fish on the market and the price drops. At other times there is a scarcity and the price rises. In the plentiful time fish should be put into cold storage. We should have sufficient cold storage facilities.

We should have a better distribution of fish and every town should have a proper fish market. I appeal to the Minister to consider this. The Minister has consistently brought to our notice the fact that we drew up these Estimates but he should remember that Fianna Fáil introduced another budget in March. It is up to the Minister to bring in a Supplementary Estimate if he so wishes. There is nothing to stop him doing so. These excuses are worn out now. Fishing should be looked at as a growth area in the economy.

The 12-mile exclusive limit is so vital to the fishing industry that the Minister and the Government must be prepared to use the maximum muscle in the EEC to ensure that it is obtained. Ireland has few enough resources and must be permitted and encouraged by the EEC to fully develop them on land and sea. Our fisheries must be retained for the exclusive use of our industry within a 12-mile limit and any Government which does not protect this vital interest must look upon themselves as being neglectful in that area. Due to the importance of the 12-mile exclusive limit the Minister must oppose any EEC fishery agreement with third countries until such time as our demands are met. If he is too weak about this situation I hope the last two debates we had in the House will strengthen his arguing points in the EEC.

As regards forestry, this is a growth area of the economy also. It has a limited potential for development. We have thousands of acres of land which are unsuitable for agricultural purposes but suited for afforestation. This land must be described as a wasted asset because it is not being planted. An attempt to use it must be made by the Department. The Minister has reservations about the amount of money for land purchase. I accept that, but he will have great difficulty in securing the type of land the Department were interested in over the years, that is, marginal agricultural land. This land, even in the west, will now be reclaimed and put into agricultural production. The Department will face great difficulty in the years ahead. Nevertheless, particularly in the west thousands of acres of more or less stony land will be unsuitable for reclamation for agricultural purposes and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry should purchase that land. From knowledge I have of the area it seems that forestry have only a very small amount of development there. They should turn their attention to that area where they can get suitable land for planting. They will not get it in Wexford or in most of Munster and Leinster except in the areas of high hills and even there any areas that are suitable for sheep production will be reclaimed for that purpose and not for afforestation.

The Department have almost a complete monopoly on all raw material as far as timber is concerned. The manner of manipulating that monopoly is important. We import approximately £45 million worth of timber of different sorts per annum. This represents a very substantial sum of money, and the objective of the Department should be to supply as much as possible of the type of material that we import. The sawmill trade claim that they can take up quite an amount of these orders, particularly in the building trade, if they are given the right price by the Department. I understand that a dispute is in progress at the moment with the Department.

What dispute?

About the price the Department are charging the sawmillers for the timber.

I have that every day of the week.

I am entitled to make my point.

In so far as the Deputy accepts and we all accept that he is addressing the Chair, the use of the second person is just a small point. Deputy D'Arcy without interruption.

I bring to the notice of the Minister a dispute that is going on with the sawmillers.

I am having discussions with them.

He is having discussions with them. I had a phone call from a constituent of mine this morning who is in that business. He said that the Minister made an offer yesterday. He did not tell me what the offer was. I must point out to the Minister that an offer was made by his senior officials to the sawmills which they claimed was completely inadequate. I asked him what the offer was but he did not tell me.

What did the Deputy expect him to say?

The Minister has a serious duty to supply as much of this timber as possible to the sawmillers. Like the fishermen and the farmers, they have started from a very bad base. They have not the type of investment they are entitled to and they claim to have financial problems and the people in the investing and production lines have financial problems also. If the Minister can relieve this, even on a temporary basis, I appeal to him to do so. They claim that he can. They would not give me any information about what the demands were although I asked them. They said discussions were going on at the moment and that to tell me would be a breach of confidentiality.

What is the dispute about?

I asked them how long the problem was going on between themselves and the Department and the answer was six or seven months. I know that the Minister has not been in office for seven months — he has been there only four months — but he cannot claim that in the four months he has been there he could not do anything in this regard. He should make some concessions, even on a temporary basis, to relieve the situation. These people have cash flow problems and he should relieve those problems if he can do so.

I am asking the Minister for a direct answer on the following. The sawmillers claim that he has made special arrangements with a firm known as Medford Limited who it seems have come into the country and erected a factory in Clonmel. For many years the Irish sawmillers have been regular buyers of timber from the State and have asked that the price of timber would relate to market conditions. I know this could be very difficult. This was refused. But the Medford company, an American company of fibreboard manufacturers, were negotiating for and have established the plant in Clonmel and they were immediately given a deal by the Department, I have been told. Such a deal has been denied the Irish sawmillers. If this is not true I ask the Minister to deny it here in this House, because this is the place for him to do so. I asked what the deal was and my informants said they did not know. I am asking the Minister to state whether he has done a deal with an American company who are setting up an industry in Clonmel and whether he has given them special conditions that he is not prepared to give to the sawmillers of this nation. We as a nation are inclined to look at the faraway cows, forgetting that we have good, basic industries in our own country.

The sawmillers do not want such a deal.

I am asking the Minister to deny or confirm that he has done a deal with these people.

The Minister will answer that when he is replying, not now.

Any such decision, if it has been made, is not in the national interest. It is not fair to Irish citizens trying to stay in business in difficult times to deny them what we are willing to give to foreigners. I challenge the Minister's right to discriminate against the citizens of this country. If he and his Government, who claim to be concerned with the creation and maintaining of employment in the country, are not prepared to state unequivocally that they will give the Irish sawmillers the same terms as were given to this firm in Clonmel, their commitment to Irish industry is very hollow. My time is very limited and I had intended raising other points. How many minutes have I left?

You have one minute left.

I would like the Minister when planting is taking place to consider the planting of extra ash. Coming from a hurling county, like the Minister, I feel that the traditional game should not fall short of its material, which is a very lucrative area for the Department. I understand that the cost of ash at the moment is £200 per ton. I appeal to the Department to make sure that this is not neglected.

A couple of weeks ago the supply of poles to the ESB and P and T was discussed in the Dáil. Why are these poles supplied from foreign markets? I know that the poles must be of Douglas Fir or larch. Would spruce be of adequate quality for this very lucrative market? I understand that some of these poles cost £150 each. If cash is going out of the country it is essential that the Minister see if we can supply the raw materials ourselves.

I had intended dealing with some other points and I hope we will have a chance to discuss them in the very near future.

The Chair appreciates Deputy D'Arcy's consideration for other Deputies who are offering. I do not want to take Deputy Bermingham's time but I know that he is mindful of a domestic arrangement I have referred to which is not the domain of the Chair, where three or four Deputies are hoping to contribute before 2.30 p.m.

It was I who asked that some kind of arrangement be made so that the three Estimates could be taken and I will be very brief on this Estimate. I do not totally agree that there should be half an hour for an Estimate, but this one is very important. An agreement was reached between the Whips for half an hour on this Estimate and 20 minutes each on the rest.

I am not an expert on fisheries. I will direct most of my remarks to the Forestry Estimate. This is the first opportunity I have had to address the Minister in this House since his appointment. I wish him well and particularly in his negotiations on fisheries in the European Community. He carries a big load. I am beginning to wonder whether the benefits accruing from being a member of that Community are more than negatived by their impositions in many fields. It is essential that a large portion of our fisheries should be preserved for our own fishermen. There is general agreement on that.

In 1977 the Fianna Fáil Minister went around shouting about a 50-mile limit. That did not do any good. We should be practical. Everyone was shouting about 50 miles. A great deal of harm was done by the hassle between different parties about whether we should have a 12-mile limit or a 50-mile limit. I wish the Minister well in his negotiations. I know he will try to get the best deal for our people. It is essential that we should have an exclusive area for our people and that it be as large as possible.

I will confine the remainder of my remarks to the Forestry Estimate. Since the foundation of this State the Irish people have invested millions and millions of pounds in forestry. Large areas were planted which have since come to maturity. We owe a debt of gratitude to the people who started this programme in the early days of the State. To our eternal discredit we did not deal properly with this mature timber and we did not make a success of processing it. I said that in an Estimates debate when my party shared government between 1973 and 1977. I said to the then Minister with responsibility for Forestry that we had a duty to become involved in the timber processing industry. Down through the years when timber in our forests became mature, by and large it was handed over to private enterprise and they were enabled to reap the benefit of the millions the Irish people had invested in a growth period which was uneconomic.

With the help of large amounts of grants from the State, private enterprise set themselves up in the processing industry. When the crunch came they got into difficulty for one reason or another, in some cases because of bad management. I am not referring to the State industry because I do not know enough about it to say it was badly managed. In one timber-orientated industry in Athy, 150 people were employed. A multinational firm were involved and they sold off the factory to an individual whose management ability was in some doubt. Over £1 million of our money was invested in that company. When they were winding up their operations a special estimate was introduced by the former Minister to subsidise that factory and try to keep it going. It is alleged that the managing director went off with most of that money in his pocket. The Department or the IDA or Fóir Teoranta did not put somebody on the board or take shares or do anything to protect that money. That must be realised in the Department.

The 150 people in that factory had built up experience and expertise over 20 or 30 years. This was not a mushroom growth. The factory was supplied from forests throughout Wicklow and Laois. The thinings were their raw material. They were charged a fairly high price for that raw material and, when that factory and others closed down, it was exported for £1 a ton to the eternal disgrace of the Minister's Department. Having closed two factories, one in my own town, we opened one in Clonmel. I want to castigate the IDA who own 64 per cent of the shares for placing it in an area where people had no expertise or experience of this industry. A new factory was built in Clonmel, although in my town we had 150 people with years of experience of the timber industry. That was a disgraceful act whether it was done by the Department or the IDA. With that expertise, a viable industry could have been rebuilt. At present the timber sold in every hardware shop is imported timber. Yet we are told our industry is not viable. That is not the case.

It was wrong to site that factory in Clonmel where there was no forestry experience. I do not blame the people of Clonmel for getting the factory placed there. Anybody with any business sense knows that the industry should have been built up where it had operated successfully for over 20 years. Because of a short period of bad management, coupled with high prices for thinnings, which later the Department exported for £1 a ton, the factory closed down. The men had the expertise, and the industry and a sawmill were properly administered. That was not found to be the most suitable place to re-invest. More could have been offered to the people who were prepared to invest in a limited way. Surely the major shareholder — in this case the people — should have some say in the matter. The Minister made a very serious mistake here. People skilled in this industry are now unable to find employment in an area they know something about.

I believe we have a valuable product in timber and I congratulate various Governments for developing our forests as a tourist and recreational amenity. Our timber can be regarded as a valuable commercial product only if we are prepared to complete the process and sell it to the public thus reducing our imports. If our timber was properly treated, it would be equal to if not better than any imported product. The Department do not seem to be making any effort in this direction although millions of pounds were invested in this area. We should be able to compete with imported materials.

I discussed this matter with a number of foresters and one man told me that public service employees in the processing industry were not prepared to work hard enough. I do not agree with that. If it were true it would show that there is a lack of supervisory ability in those employed in the public service. Our people can work as hard as any other nationality. There is no body better equipped to produce the finished article than the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. They have the raw material. If they throw up their hands and say they cannot compete with other countries, and that it is cheaper to import timber, that is disgraceful.

Over the years we have invested millions of pounds in our forests and they are now coming to maturity. We are still taking over land and planting trees every year, but unless we can process that timber properly, and can compete with imported products, that investment will be lost. Most of the timber we see being used has been imported. That is another doubtful advantage of being a member of the EEC, but I will not go into that debate now. Have I run out of time?

No, I was sending signals to Deputy De Rossa. There are 25 minutes remaining and I understand Deputy De Rossa, Deputy Gallagher and the Minister hope to speak. You are entitled to 30 minutes if you wish.

How long have I left?

There are 24 minutes left for this debate and three Deputies wish to speak during that period. You started to speak at 1.46 p.m.

I have 15 minutes left.

I appreciate that other Deputies want to speak. I know the Minister cannot correct the terrible mistake that was made when the timber factory was started in an area where there was not a timber tradition, by-passing an area where a mill had operated successfully for 20 years and unsuccessfully for four years under new management. Then the Department and Fóir Teoranta supplied millions of pounds to keep it going but the situation worsened.

I am glad to see the State has a 64 per cent interest in the Clonmel business. This means we will be in control. I ask the Minister to examine the possibility of going into full timber production, processing and treating timber, so that we can compete with imported products.

The 64 per cent interest is in the Scarriff project.

I am calling Deputy De Rossa and would remind him of the parable of the loaves and the fishes.

I thank Deputy Bermingham for shortening his contribution to allow the rest of us speak. If the fishery and forestry industry is tackled in the correct way it can be used to tackle our unemployment problems. Unfortunately this country's natural resources have been plundered for years. Our natural gas at Kinsale belongs to the Rockfeller Marathon Company, our ore from the biggest lead zinc mine in western Europe is being shipped out from Navan as fast as it can be got out of the country, and our oil rights are already handed over to the multinational corporations before even one drop has been brought ashore. Our excellent agricultural land is under-utilised and our food is unprocessed. Clearly there has been a lack of foresight in the development of our natural resources. I disagree with the Fine Gael Deputy who said we had few resources. In fact, we have vast resources. The resources of the sea and forestry are renewable and for that reason they deserve special attention.

At the moment we are facing the possible — and I emphasise possible — sell-out of our fishing stocks. This would be a betrayal because fish are a valuable renewable resource with the potential for a major processing industry. If the stocks are wiped out they cannot be replaced, as some of the other EEC countries have learned to their cost. Under the proposed EEC agreement the Government must now allow other states to fish up to six miles of the Irish shoreline. In effect this would allow fleets that in many cases have fished their own waters empty to come and clear out the Irish stocks. There would be little point in asking them to preserve Irish stocks. It is no use talking to our fishermen about conservation when they see the German, French, Spanish and Dutch trawler owners grabbing all the catches they can, literally while stocks last. If we are serious about job creation we must shout stop at this point. We must not allow any further diminution of our fishing limits.

Fishing is a hard, dirty and dangerous job. The deckhands who work on Irish trawlers are paid on the share system which means they have no holiday pay, no sick pay, no pensions and no job security. The rule is that if they do not catch fish they do not get wages — it is as brutal as that. Every year unfortunately some of them pay with their lives for the risks they take and the lack of proper safety enforcement.

A major scandal in the fish industry is the difference in price paid to the fishermen and the cost to consumers in the shops. Quite recently trawlermen were getting £6 per box — which works out at less than 5p a lb — while consumers were paying more than £1 per lb for the same fish. The dumping of good fish back into the sea is the other major outrage of the so-called free market. There is total chaos in the present system. Hundreds of tons of fish are dumped every year to keep up the intervention price. This is a criminal waste of valuable protein in a hungry world, in the interests of short-term private profit. It does not even make economic sense. That fish should be processed, not dumped. A planned and developed processing industry is vital. Far too much of our national catch is shipped out raw to be processed abroad, creating added value and good jobs which we need badly at home. The total catch is pitifully small considering the export potential.

Giant trawlers from Japan and eastern Europe travel thousands of miles for the fish shoals. We have some of the richest waters in the world around our coastline that are barely tapped by our own fleet. This country must not give away any more of that resource in the present EEC negotiations.

I should like to deal with the Howth harbour development work. It is not surprising that the cost of the harbour development has overshot its budget. What is alarming is that the extra funds appear to have been diverted towards the marina and yacht club complex. This means that the essential services needed to preserve fishermen's jobs in the port have been neglected. Not alone has essential work on the fishing section of the harbour been postponed, such as the new icing plant, but the representations by fishermen's organisations for more space and improved facilities have been ignored.

For instance, it is a disgrace that the fishermen's request for a larger auction hall has been rejected by the Office of Public Works in favour of larger carparks for day trippers, especially as there are regular buses and trains available from Dublin for people wishing to visit the harbour. I hope that in his reply to the debate the Minister will indicate that the views of the local fishermen will receive a proper hearing. It is also important that he gives an assurance that the necessary funds will be made available to complete the fishing section of the harbour — even if it means leaving the yacht club stranded for a few months. After all, men's jobs must surely take precedence over other men's leisure pursuits.

On the forestry front, I think a word of praise is in order for the excellent work done by the Department in developing our timber reserves. We still have one of the lowest rates of afforestation in Europe, despite our ideal climate for timber growing, but this is because of the lack of commitment by successive Governments to develop yet another of our most valuable renewable resources.

I realise that time is tight and I want to allow other speakers to speak. Many of the points I intended to make have been made already. I should like to close on this note. An Estimate was passed this morning allowing for the purchase of the assets of the Clondalkin Paper Mills. I hope this purchase by the State is an indication that it intends to treat the timber industry and the processing industry as an integrated industry, not simply to have the Clondalkin Paper Mills arrangement as a once-off effort to save jobs in that area. I hope it is part of an integrated plan for the development of the timber industry.

(Donegal South-West): I wish to thank Deputy De Rossa and Deputy Bermingham for cutting short their contributions to allow me a few minutes to speak. I am very disappointed at the way Deputy D'Arcy acted in this House. He made all sorts of suggestions. He spoke about The Hague Agreement but considered it in isolation without considering the London Agreement in the early sixties and the Treaty of Accession. The Deputy could have been much more constructive. He could have stayed here and listened to other Deputies who also have something to contribute to the debate.

Deputy D'Arcy spoke about marketing. I was surprised to hear him say that the problem could be alleviated if we set up markets in every town and village. I come from a constituency where the people depend on the fishing industry. I agree it would be very satisfactory if the Irish people would buy more fish but it would not alleviate the problem. We have to look abroad for markets. I ask the Minister to consider going on a promotional trip to help the fishermen and the processors to sell mackerel. Perhaps he might consider embarking on such a tour, just as the Minister for Industry and Energy and the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism have done. I think the fishermen and the processors would appreciate such a gesture from the Minister.

I compliment the Minister on what he has done in the past few weeks. In his negotiations in Brussels he got an increase from 56,000 tonnes to 80,000 tonnes in regard to mackerel and I was glad to hear him say today that he is going to seek a further increase. This is the kind of Minister the fishermen want to fight on their behalf. The Minister has been quite realistic.

Deputy D'Arcy made all kinds of suggestions including a 12-mile limit and so on. When their Minister went to Brussels he was prepared to accept a six-mile limit. However, Fine Gael are now trying to make life more difficult for the Minister and no matter what deal he gets it will not satisfy them. We saw what they did when they were in Government.

I took offence when Deputy D'Arcy spoke about the poor fishing fleet. I hope he was not referring to our fishing fleet. If he was, the fishermen will give him their answer. We have no poor fishing fleet. The industry is only in its infancy so that suggestion about our fleet is very disrespectful.

I have not had the opportunity before to speak here about salmon. There has been a decrease in this area of fisheries in the past two years, but I am confident that there will be an upturn this year. However, that should not lead us to be complacent but rather to adhere fairly rigidly to conservation measures. On the question of conservation I should like to pay tribute to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and to the regional fishery boards for the part they play in this area. Much credit is due, too, to the angling associations who have contributed to the restocking of our rivers to ensure the sustaining of salmon fishing. These associations go to the expense of buying the ova and putting them into the hatchery so as to ensure a supply of salmon for the future.

The Minister has said that part of the moneys accruing from the salmon levy should go towards the development of our inland fisheries. However, now that that levy has been abolished I have no doubt that the fishermen will respond if called on to do so and will contribute towards the development of our inland fisheries, that they will help to buy the ova to be put into the hatcheries or, better still, to be put directly into the rivers where the survival rate is greater than in the hatcheries. I should like to have the opportunity of speaking for much longer on the question of salmon. It is a subject on which I have very strong views in terms of what we should do in the future and of the legislation which perhaps should be brought before the House in this regard. However, I can only express the hope than on another occasion I will have the opportunity of going into this matter in more detail.

I should like to refer, too, to the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1981, and to say how important this legislation has been in ensuring that more moneys were available to BIM to enable them to buy new grant-aided boats. In this connection, too, I should like to mention especially the smaller fishing boats, those of 30-40 feet on which many people along the western coast depend for a living. Indeed, this fleet is the backbone of the fishing industry in the constituency I represent. Statistics indicate a bright future for the larger boats but not all that many people are employed on those boats. The people who operate the smaller vessels have to go out at night in hazardous conditions in their efforts to make a living. There is an urgent need for loans and grants in respect of these small half-deckers. It has been a disappointment that in the last number of years the EEC have not paid anything by way of FEOGA grants in respect of these smaller boats but I appeal to the Minister to have this point emphasised at Council of Ministers meetings.

Regarding the west, I would remind the House that if it were not for the fact that we in that part of the country are so disadvantaged, Ireland as a whole would not be classified a disadvantaged area. The result of this is that the rest of the country — Dublin, Waterford, Cork and so on — can reap the benefits that are available because of our plight.

Finally, I would refer briefly to the factory ships. I am very pleased that, although we must accept these, we must also forge ahead with greater freezing capacity along our coasts. We can only hope that in the not too distant future we will have sufficient freezing capacity so that it will not be necessary to have these freezer boats along our coasts.

I am disappointed at the decline in the landings of lobster and crayfish and I would ask the Minister to have his Department investigate the reasons for this situation. If conservation measures in this respect are considered necessary, I am sure that our fishermen will respond to any move in that direction.

It is hardly necessary for me to go into the question of the common fisheries policy since this is ground that has been covered by all those who have spoken. However, we must be realistic and have confidence in our Minister going to Europe and endeavouring to get what is best for us. It is unfair and pointless for anyone to try to force the Minister to speak of something that is unrealistic. The people who voted with us on the evening of the motion in question obviously have confidence in the Minister also. We have not given our Minister carte blanche to go to Europe and do what he wishes, which is what happened when the Coalition Minister went out there.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan rose.

The Deputy was not here earlier on but there is agreement between the Whips that debate on these Estimates would conclude at 2.30 p.m. Consequently, there are only four minutes remaining to the Minister to reply. On the other hand I should explain to the Deputy that if he is not a party to the Whip's arrangement and is rising now in what he regards as his own right, it would be required of me to call on him for the four minutes remaining and thereby to exclude the Minister.

I should not like to exclude the Minister. It would be wrong, unmannerly, selfish and discourteous of me to do so, but perhaps the Chair would let me know whether this arrangement applies to the remaining Estimates that are ordered.

I understand that it is the agreement of the Whips that an hour be allocated to the next Estimate, which is to begin at 2.30, that is, the Estimate for the Office of Public Works.

What about the Justice Estimate?

There will be half-an-hour for that Estimate.

I suppose the Minister will take 15 minutes of that time but it is my intention to speak on that Estimate. How can 30 minutes be considered sufficient in this case when half the people in the country are being beaten up and robbed, when there is a complete breakdown in law and order? The House will not get away with this time allocation in this case.

It would be impossible in the time remaining for me to reply in detail to any of the various important and at times complex issues raised by a number of Deputies. All I can do is to assure those Deputies who have contributed that when the debate has concluded I will contact them immediately and will endeavour to give them the information they sought.

Regarding Deputy De Rossa's query about the development of Howth Harbour, I assure him that the development to which he refers is part of an overall plan for the development of that harbour. When we have concluded this debate I shall let the Deputy have sight of the engineering plans for the project. We are involved only in the fisheries aspect of it, but I am sure that when he sees the overall plan he will be satisfied that the various interests are being protected adequately. I have been out there to see for myself what is the position in regard to the various issues involved. I am available to meet representatives of the fishermen there in relation to the overall development and any reservations they may have about the shaping of proposals. But they would need to look at the overall plan. I think if the Deputy saw the overall plan he would be quite satisfied that it was one in the interests of all the people of that area.

It is impossible to cover the whole area of fisheries by way of reply to queries raised here. However, there is one point to which I should like to refer for a moment, that is the issue of the saw millers and the alleged dispute mentioned by Deputy D'Arcy at the beginning of the debate. I should say there is no dispute between the saw millers and myself. I have had a very useful and constructive meeting with them as a result of which we established a meeting with the millers and officials of my Department. These discussions are continuing. I do not think Deputy D'Arcy could expect me to take too seriously remarks which some constituent of his made yesterday, a constituent who was not prepared to tell him the exact nature of the alleged dispute or give the Deputy the type of figures which would have enabled him even to make a case.

The price of timber, the Minister knows perfectly well.

We are having discussions. There is no dispute. We are having meaningful, useful and constructive discussions, which are continuing. Certainly it is in the interests of the Department, myself and the millers that we have such constructive and useful discussion. I shall give an undertaking to any Deputy with a particular interest in this, to the Deputies who spoke here, to meet me immediately after this discussion when I shall let them have the benefit of the full information at my disposal and which may help to alleviate any misapprehensions people might have about some of the activities of my Department.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share