I have been handed a timetable which I propose to make a rule of the House: 7 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., Deputy Daly; 7.30 p.m. to 8 p.m., Minister for Fisheries: 8 p.m. to 8.15 p.m., Deputy Hugh Byrne and 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., Deputy J. Walsh.
Private Members' Business. - Irish Fishing Industry: Motion.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for their failure to arrest the alarming deterioration of the Irish fishing industry, and calls on them to take immediate action to deal with the current crisis, and to formulate and implement a policy which will fully develop the potential of our fishery resources within the context of the EEC Common Fisheries Policy.
The most demoralising aspect of the Irish fishing industry today is the inability of those involved to see any prospect of a recovery in the industry or an indication in the future of getting a return for their investment and effort. It is a widely held view that the industry is in a very serious decline, if not finished, and the possibility of getting a return for their investment is not apparent. A feeling of depression and hopelessness appears to prevail, but I do not share this pessimism or go along the road of defeatism and pessimism. This feeling of helplessness is not needed at this time. What is needed is courage and determination to face up to the problems in the industry. Fianna Fáil are convinced that with appropriate action and investment the industry can thrive and prosper. We have tabled this motion not to attack the Government or to indulge in a ministerial bashing exercise but to bring home to the Government the serious difficulties this industry are experiencing and the need to take remedial action to deal with some of these problems. With the conclusion of the Common Fisheries Policy agreement we want to encourage the Government to introduce a national fisheries development programme which will ensure the continued expansion and development of the industry and the survival of many people involved in the industry.
We all recognise that the present fisheries development programme, introduced by Bord Iascaigh Mhara in 1962, has had limited success in achieving some of the aims, goals and ambitions laid down at that time. It is time to carry out a re-examination of that policy to see where are the changing circumstances and needs in the industry and where our development programme will lead in the future in the context of the overall EEC policy. We put down this motion to highlight the present situation. The Government and the Minister appear to be neglecting the fact that the Community policy has been completed for more than a year. The indications were that immediately on the finalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy agreement we would have our own national policy. In the absence of any Government action we have tabled this motion demanding that the Government take action very soon. If something is not done serious damage will be done to the industry, confidence will be eroded and many people may not be involved in the industry over the next few years.
In the catching sector we now see one of the most serious crises facing the industry. There are a number of problems. The situation is probably the same in any country which has a fishing industry. Many of these problems are interrelated but the biggest single difficulty we have is that a very large proportion of shippers and boat owners are unable to meet their loan repayments. I say "a very large number" because I do not have the exact number of people involved, but statements have been made by responsible people in the business that upwards of 80 per cent of fleet, skipper and boat owners are in financial difficulties, and some are in serious financial difficulties. That is an undeniable fact. Some of these people seem to be totally incapable of operating in a viable way and they are under constant threat of having their boats repossessed. In this atmosphere there is no realistic prospect of restoring confidence in the industry. That is why we consider we should put up constructive, positive alternatives indicating where we see action is needed, and we put forward a proper policy to restore the industry.
If we fail to recognise the problems in the catching sector we threaten the whole industry. That is why we are asking the Government to undertake an immediate examination, in consultation with the fishermen's organisations and Bord Iascaigh Mhara of the financial position of each case and see how these difficulties can be eliminated. We need to see how such owners can be directed in a way that will enable them to continue in the business in future. If a certain number of operations are not viable and there is no prospect of their ever being viable, then the Government at least owe them an explanation as to how they can be contained within the industry, and what future there is for them.
We are at a stage in the development of the industry where we all recognise that the traditional stocks which have been the backbone of the industry over the years are in serious conservation difficulties. Nevertheless, it is recognised that there are a number of species which are freely available without limitation of quota or restriction from the Community, and within our economic zone there are exploitable species which are not being fished and which can be fished. Many boat-owners who seem to be unable to operate in a viable way could be accommodated through a system which would exploit the potential of these non-traditional species. Through exploratory fishing methods under the direction of Bord Iascaigh Mhara and with the assistance of the Department, they would have a meaningful, useful and important role to play, identifying new species new fishing areas and so on. The Government must quickly come to the rescue of these fishermen. There could be a profitable future for them under a scheme of exploratory fishing.
One of the most aggravating problems in the fishing industry has been the escalating fuel costs. This has had a most damaging impact on the fleet and has seriously curtailed the fishing effort. The fuel price handicap was recognised by previous administrations when the rebate on excise duty was introduced. It is necessary now to look very carefully at the system and I would ask the Minister to examine the position and ensure that fuel and other operating costs are minimised.
Nobody can be satisfied with the general state of investment in harbours, particularly the smaller harbours. Piers are in danger of collapse. Doolin pier in my constituency collapsed last year with tragic loss of life. Clogherhead is also in danger and investigations have been in progress for some time. A number of proposals are awaiting sanction with regard to Greencastle, Burtonport, Schull and others. I deplored the decision of the Government last year to cut £1 million from the capital allocation. This money could have been used to carry out the necessary works at these harbours. Capital investment is needed now for a crash programme of repairs, reconstruction, dredging and other important infrastructural developments, especially in the smaller harbours. How can the fishing industry thrive without the basic requirements? The Department of the Environment must work in co-operation with the Office of Public Works and the Department of Fisheries in the planning of harbours and other infrastructural developments. This is important not only for fishery development but for the general economic benefit of those areas. Fishing activities in ports like Killybegs have had an enormous impact on a very wide scale. It is necessary that other resources should be found whether by way of assistance from the Regional Development Fund or through FEOGA. Attention must be given to these harbours to make them safe and to provide the necessary equipment.
We have all eagerly awaited the report of the sectoral committee which has been sitting for about 12 months. I compliment those involved in that work. I was very keen when I was in the Department that this effort should be undertaken. We await the report of that committee and hope that the Government will implement the recommendations.
The Minister and others will agree that we must consider the whole area of marketing and scientific research strategies. Our record in regard to research has not been very impressive. We have the Lough Beltra, which is not a fishery research vessel as such, but it operated very little in 1983. We must recognise that the oceans make up 71 per cent of the world's surface, yet more than 90 per cent of all fishing activity takes place in shallow coastal waters which make up only about 8 per cent of the total. We must realise the importance of exploiting fully the economic zones. Our own economic zone has taken on far more importance in view of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. We now stand to gain marine territories many times larger than our own land mass. It is important to note that within our economic zone hundreds of foreign vessels are operating. They are engaged in fishery, marine and oceanographic research and come from countries within the Community but also from eastern Europe and America.
The Lough Beltra has been doing some very important work and I believe a programme has been drawn up for 1984. We are grateful for this to the National Board of Science and Technology. We must recognise that we have a very important resource and we must in future provide research and training facilities for work in Irish coastal waters. This can only partly be done by the Lough Beltra. It is vital to have our own fishery research vessel which can undertake work for BIM and the Department of Fisheries in the exploration of new fishing areas for exploitable species. It should have trained, skilled personnel who would have very good employment opportunities. The vessel should also be available to university departments and other research agencies. While we can get information from the various research vessels from other states it is very limited and we need our own research vessel immediately. I would urge the Government to go ahead with the existing plan in the Department and to provide the necessary finance.
The value of marketing cannot be over-emphasised. When I was in the Department I identified marketing as one of the key areas for the future expansion and development of the industry. I undertook to identify suitable foreign markets and made a short trip to Egypt where there is a huge market of probably 200,000 tonnes to be exploited. That is equivalent to our total exports for last year. It is recognised that many of these countries wish to conclude state to state agreements. I ask the Minister to examine the possibility of reaching such an agreement to ensure the survival and prosperity of our industry in the long-term.
Marketing has been highlighted by many people. At one time an anonymous scribe wrote: The codfish lays 10,000 eggs; the homely hen lays one. The codfish never cackles to tell you what has been done. And so we scorn the codfish, while the humble hen we prize; which only goes to show you that it pays to advertise. Much has been written in magazines about the possibility of opening up marketing and advertising possibilities to promote Irish fish exports.
We need to expand our own per capita fish consumption. While it is useful to look at the possibility of exploiting markets abroad and opening up new outlets, one of the key areas is on our own doorstep, in our own home market. We could increase our per capita fish consumption dramatically, which is the lowest in the European Community. In Denmark they have four times our per capita consumption of fish. We could increase it significantly and also expand our overseas market and open up new opportunities.
We need to improve quality, availability and continuity of supply. It is significant that in some of our supermarkets and multiples we have not got a very great choice of fish and fish products mainly because of the difficulties involved in availability and continuity of supply. We have very few up-market products. We need to look very carefully at this whole area and ensure that we benefit the industry by having the fullest utilisation of our fish catch.
We must encourage processors and exporters to invest in marketing and in the identification of sales and marketing opportunities in co-operation with An Bord Iascaigh Mhara who have done so much work already. We must also involve agencies like Córas Tráchtála and other Government agencies and also people in our embassies and others who can help us. Encouragement must be given to ensuring that top quality fish are landed by the boats. Skippers and those involved in the industry must be enabled to keep abreast of new handling and storage methods, so that the appearance and the quality of the fish will be maintained.
As part of the harbour development schemes which I mentioned earlier, we should pay attention to the provision of refrigeration and other facilities of that nature which will ensure that the fish quality is presented in the best possible way and that the fish quality is maintained from the time it is caught until it is marketed. As everybody knows, fish cannot be too fresh.
A central requirement is to improve the final product, its quality and its availability, and to have a premium available which will not only compete in the world markets but also command an ever-increasing share of the import market which we see advertised on television almost every day. We must look at the possibility of exploiting joint ventures with overseas firms to open up new outlets for us and to enable us to have skills and technical advice which we lack in some respects at present in this whole area.
One of the major problems associated with processing is the non-availability of certain species throughout the processing year. I acknowledge that it is difficult to have a proper plan or schedule in advance of the catch. It is difficult to plan your processing operations without having some knowledge of your catch situation. I would advocate bringing closer together the people involved in the catching sector and the processors and marketers, so that each of them can benefit from their involvement with each other and there can be profitability and security for all.
Plant must be designed to cope with peak catches and deal with a variety of species so that we will not have a bottleneck arising which is creating difficulties. There appears to be tremendous scope for secondary processing. This is very important when we consider our unemployment problem. In the primary processing stage in the region of 200 tonnes of herring gives employment to one person or perhaps more. Secondary processing of the same volume of herring provides six or seven jobs. The job potential of processing 200 tonnes of herring is about one in the primary stage as against six or seven in the secondary stage.
If we are really serious about tackling our unemployment problem, we must look at these areas for suitable, reliable employment opportunities for our own people, and especially our young people. Because of its very nature and because of the fact that it is located in the regional areas, in the different localities and regions, the fishing industry could have a very big impact on regional unemployment and providing employment for our young people in the coastal areas.
The National Enterprise Agency, the Youth Employment Agency and the various organisations which are there to ensure that our young people are adequately trained and skilled for the job opportunities which will become available in the future, should take an interest in this industry and recognise the huge potential for job creation to ensure a sound future for our fishermen and people involved in the industry. Every processing operation which is upping the value of your catch is upping the return you will get for your catch and in the long run will provide a future for those involved in the industry and a better return and a better yield for their involvement in the whole process.
Such a scheme should be organised by BIM through their existing training operations. It is an immediate necessity to identify where we can exploit more fully the potential of our present catch, not to talk of the possibility of new and increasing stocks and catches which will be coming on the market in the future. Other Deputies will deal with some of the outer areas involved in this very complex issue.
I want to mention the possibilities of aquaculture and impress on the Minister the need to undertake, under the authority he has in the Fisheries Acts, the identification and designation of areas for the licensing of suitable aquacultural, maricultural and fish farming projects. Much research has been done in these areas. We have the basic information. The National Board of Science and Technology have produced a detailed study setting out suitable locations and projects and identifying areas where this can be done and the various species which can be farmed.
The value of fish farming could be doubled or trebled over the next number of years. With a new, vigorous and dynamic policy in the area of aquaculture, mariculture and fish farming, the prospects of long-term job opportunities are tremendous. We have sufficient research and data available to undertake a major scheme of farming the sea in the same way as we have farmed the land, and perhaps even better than some of the land has been farmed. The development of farming the sea must be taken very seriously and undertaken at the earliest possible opportunity.
Generally speaking, in this resolution we are condemning the Government for their failure for over a year now to introduce a meaningful and detailed analysis of a policy to plan the future of the industry. We have put forward here constructive ideas, suggestions and proposals which we feel will be helpful to the Minister and in respect of which action must be taken very soon if the whole future of the industry is to be protected, developed and expanded.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute:
"notes and endorses the Government's policy for the development and improvement of the Irish fishing industry within the context of the EEC Common Fisheries Policy."
From his first few sentences I thought Deputy Daly would end up telling us that the fish were dying of depression in the sea. As he continued his contribution he was very constructive and, having listened to him for the past half hour, it appeared to me that he put down this motion with a certain amount of tongue in cheek. I am glad to have this opportunity of replying to the many points he raised in a very constructive and non-contentious manner. I am sure his colleagues sitting behind him will have somewhat more to say on different issues. I might pre-empt what some of them might have to say in the next 27 to 28 minutes.
In relation to the Common Fisheries Policy, as Deputies are aware, we succeeded 14 months ago in finalising a Common Fisheries Policy within the EEC. Most of the work on that had been done when I assumed office in December 1982. While we had some few tough meetings subsequent to that, we eventually got the Common Fisheries Policy through at the end of January 1983. I said at the time, and I still say, that the Common Fisheries Policy, while not changing the whole fisheries scene overnight, does provide the basis for sustainable development of the industry. It provides the basis for the industry to go on with a degree of certainty that it had not before the finalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy; there is now a stability there that was not there before. It is up to us to avail of that situation and increase our involvement in the fishing industry which can be very profitable provided it is handled correctly and that the climate is appropriate to the needs of the day.
We succeeded, both in 1983 and in the current year, in getting tax and quotas which, looking back, would seem to have been impossible ten years ago. The level of quotas we are now getting has been given to us — by right we demand them — as a direct result of the negotiations that took place from 1976 onwards, the high point of which was The Hague Agreement of 1976 at which the present Taoiseach, then Minister for Foreign Affairs — because of the low level of fish catches here at the time — demanded and got a special deal which allowed the Irish catch to be doubled before the restrictions of tax and quotas would apply. That is exactly what we did.
Perhaps, to put things in perspective, a few figures would be timely. In 1963, 20 years ago, our total catch was 25,000 tonnes, our total value was £1.4 million. Ten years later those 25,000 tonnes became 85,725 tonnes and the £1.4 million became £7.5 million. Ten years later still, last year, our total catch exceeded 200,000 tonnes and in value amounted to somewhat in excess of £50 million. When one considers the investment by our taxpayers through An Bord Iascaigh Mhara of a fairly substantial sum of money on behalf of the people of this country one cannot but be heartened at the figures I have just mentioned — there has been massive progress in total catches and in their value. While there are problems at present — to which I shall refer later — if we look at the track record over the past 20 years, we can be justly proud that we have increased our catch quantitywise by a multiple of eight and value-wise by a multiple of 30.
Deputy Daly mentioned a lack of policy. On assuming office I should say I asked that the Sectoral Consultative Committee on Fishing would meet, which they did, since when they have been slaving over the formulation of policy. At least they are identifying the problems and offering solutions. Their report is virtually ready and I am told I should have it by the end of this month. I should like to express my thanks to the chairman and members who have had many meetings in order to get some degree of consensus in the diagnostic and in the treatment areas. That will be coming to us very shortly. That system of getting to the root of the problem is preferable to ministerial meetings at which Departmental people meet, to meetings with individual groups of varying and diverging interests in the industry, when one never gets anywhere endeavouring to reach a consensus. That consultative committee sat down, buried their differences and will be coming up with what I hope will be a very valuable report outlining the problems and solutions thereto.
The motion mentions that the industry is in crisis. As I said, I think Deputy Daly put down this motion tongue in cheek to a certain degree. As a former Minister in this Department the Deputy well knows that the problems I am now facing he faced in his time. He met the same deputations who told him much the same things they are now telling me, who made the same demands. In a nutshell what I am saying is that the problems we have now did not all commence 18 months ago; they were there long before my predecessor came into office, and many of his predecessors also; they evolved over the years. Successive Ministers have been endeavouring to solve them — and I accept that Deputy Daly was not in this Department too long — but during that time, looking back over the records, knowing the problems, having met the people who outlined their difficulties to him, his efforts to solve those problems, in relation to the different things I have undertaken in 14 months, do not measure up. I do not want to be critical of him but he said that no policy was yet available. The consultative committee was there in his time and he was unable to generate enough activity to put it into action. The main difference now is that something is happening in relation to that committee.
The problems that relate to the industry can be put down to the high cost of vessels, interest rates and the high price of fuel. The price of fish has fallen over the last few years in real terms. Deputy Daly mentioned that in his time the Government of which he was a member treated fishermen with a certain degree of generosity in relation to fuel. The fuel oil price increase in the last budget does not apply to the fishing industry. We are talking about a supply and demand situation where market forces dictate the price level. No Minister can effect any change in that. The only people who can effect a change in the price of the commodity are the processors in relation to processed fish and the producers in relation to fresh fish. They can only do that by increasing the quality of the commodity, improving its presentation and so on.
We know that the market is depressed. I was looking at some figures in relation to different species. There are no great prospects as regards marketing in the immediate future. Within the Common Fisheries Policy a floor price is in operation where compensation is paid in the case of fish which are withdrawn. Deputy Daly emphasised the importance of marketing. I agree it is very important. Unless the product can be sold there is no point in producing it. Since assuming office Deputy D'Arcy has set up a marketing advisory committee.
I never heard of it.
This committee has been working very well and has broad terms of reference. It co-ordinates the producers and the exporters. They have recently finalised arrangements for creating a proper market for fish products. I thank the Minister of State and the committee for what they have done. They have arranged for daily reports on supplies, marketing conditions and levels of catches in different areas so that the industry will know what is happening. In conjunction with BIM they have definite ideas on where they will go in relation to exports.
As Deputies know, herring is a problem commodity and has been for some time. The EEC has taken it on itself to examine the market position in relation to herring. This formed part of the last meeting we had in Brussels. The Department had an input into an investigation of the herring market.
Deputy Daly is quite right in suggesting that we have too many eggs in the one basket. We have the more popular species possibly due to tradition and restrictions on our capacity to catch or explore other species. When one considers that 60 per cent of our total catch is mackerel and that 73 per cent of our total export is mackerel it will be realised that we are treading on dangerous ground. Since becoming Minister I have appealed to the fishing industry to diversify and deal in species which are available in our waters and do not come under the EEC quota system. There are serious problems in relation to mackerel. The major market on which we have been dependent for some years is Nigeria, but because of internal problems there difficulties have arisen about the issuing of import licences. My Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism have been keeping a close eye on what is happening there. I understand the industry are quite hopeful that licences will be issued shortly which will release the stock-pile of mackerel we have which is ready to go. The Government approved a special export credit insurance scheme last autumn to cover exports to markets such as Nigeria where there are difficulties about payment and so on.
The Minister of State and I have repeatedly requested that the industry should get away from this dangerous dependence on a few species such as herring, mackerel and cod, and diversify. If we do that we will have to find out where the markets are for those other species. As Deputy Daly said, we should develop the home market. BIM are concentrating on a new approach to the home market consumption of fish. I intend to go to Japan shortly on the advice of the industry. From what I have read on the subject, there is potential there for the sale of fish from this country. Also we are looking into the possibility of increasing our input into the Middle East where there is potential for exports from this country.
There is a problem of immediate concern, and Deputies will realise that I cannot go into this in detail, but I mention it. In itself it is not a problem. It is the enlargement of the Community with the accession of Spain and Portugal as members of the EEC. Because of the volume of boats and the size of the Spanish fleet it is accepted by the current EEC members that problems may arise. We have already had some small taste of what might happen in this country when last year I was forced to introduce legislation to protect our six to 12-mile limit from Spanish boats flying flags of convenience from UK ports. I am glad to say that this legislation has been successful and did the trick, but these problems will be accentuated. When these people become members of the Community and this country will have the presidency of the different councils for the second half of this year we will be facing very serious discussions and negotiations in relation to the accession of Spain and Portugal.
The Deputy mentioned mariculture and the development of aquaculture in general. I can boast of having finalised negotiations which were causing difficulties in relation to section 54 of the 1980 Fisheries Act. There was a question mark over that section. It was holding up the development of mariculture and aquaculture. This has now been resolved and I can tell the House that no later than next Monday the first public inquiry will commence for the designation of areas around the coast for the development of mariculture. These inquiries will continue from then on as there is a fair backlog to get through because of the hold-up due to the section 54 problem which was there since the Act was passed. From next week onwards the inquiries will continue and areas will be designated right around the coast for the future development of aquaculture which has a very great potential in this country.
Let me say that people mention the fishing industry as having great potential. It has, and one has only to look at our track record in the past ten, 15, 20 years. There is no reason in the world why the same rate of growth should not apply over the next 15 years to the end of this century, provided that the right decisions are taken now, knowing and conscious of the fact that we are now operating within the framework of a common fisheries policy with our colleagues in the EEC, knowing and conscious that we are operating in a fishery where certain species are being caught under quota and that year after year as the capacity to catch increases, pressures will build up on a quota species, and it behoves us now to explore non-quota species. In relation to that let me mention two examples which give me great hope. In my own county, not my own constituency, the west Mayo constituency last year for the first time saw the development of a dog-fish fishery in Achill which turned out to be a great success. Since I was knee high I have seen fishermen dump dog-fish overboard as being of no use. To the uninitiated who eat dog-fish it is known as rock-salmon, I am told, and they eat it gladly and pay money for the privilege of eating this species. Achill fishermen must be complimented on their initiative on getting this. Also for the first time the fishermen from the west coast last season caught large quantities of prawns on the Porcupine Bank. Again, this is new for Irish fishermen. As everybody knows, prawns are a delicacy for which there is a great market, and this gave us great hope. On my own doorstep, in Killala for example, last year, hake fisheries were very successful also. These are signs of hope and I would say that the hope far outweighs the pessimism.
In regard to the inland fisheries freshwater fish, salmon and trout, we must be careful here to provide the correct balance between over-fishing and rational exploitation of the stocks. I am talking here about both sea trout and salmon. I had to make a decision in relation to the question of salmon stock this year and, having met all the interests involved, the drift people, the draft people, the snapnet people, the anglers and the owners, I came to the conclusion that the only sure way to increase catches which were depleted over the last number of years was to observe conservation measures. I have been criticised for this, specifically for not allowing the legalisation of monofilament nets. I do not know if Deputy Daly is aware of this, but his colleague, Deputy P. Gallagher, criticised me publicly recently, or at least he was reported as having done so in one of the local papers in Donegal, and I was criticised by Raidio na Gaeltachta. I would like at this stage to ask a very simple question. What is the Fianna Fáil policy in relation to mono-filament? Does Deputy Daly speak for his party as spokesman on fisheries in relation to this issue?
Let us have the Fine Gael policy.
The Minister has one minute to conclude.
Let me say before I sit down that, regarding salmon, we had last year a catch of over 15,000 tonnes as against 900 tonnes in 1982 and 600 tonnes in 1981.
That does not say much for the Minister's conservation measures.
The reason for my taking the decision I took was to ensure — and I am responsible, as Deputy Daly is aware, for all types of fishing, including draft and angling — that the stock is preserved at a level to assure its survival in the future and that the escapement level will ensure its survival.
That is where your problem lies.
I would like to know the policy of the party in Opposition in relation to conservation.
It is a pity that the Minister is not backed by his backbenchers.
I support my colleagues on the motion before the House:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for their failure to arrest the alarming deterioration of the Irish fishing industry, and calls on them to take immediate action to deal with the current crisis, and to formulate and implement a policy which will fully develop the potential of our fishery resources within the context of the EEC Common Fisheries Policy.
We in this country have the greatest length of coastline per head of population, yet we have one of the most underdeveloped, if not the most underdeveloped fishing industry in the EEC. It is the laughing stock of our European counterparts who spend more time in our waters than we do ourselves. It is farcical to have to listen to hypocritical rubbish from the Government benches. They claim to have a policy for the development and improvement of this industry, but I was very disappointed with the Minister's speech. Deputy O'Toole is a very nice fellow and I do not like having to criticise him at any time but, like the advertisement on the television, he made up his speech as he went alone. He has fallen into the same trap as his Government colleagues of being negative and commenting on what the Fianna Fáil Deputies have said, rather than being positive.
I was positive.
I say, by way of advice, which if followed would meet with favour throughout the country, that the time for excuses is past and we now expect some action. The Minister should come clean and confess that in his opinion our fishermen are the lowest possible priority, being treated more as a nuisance than as a prospect for economic recovery.
As suggested in our motion, this nation, with no person living more than 60 miles from the coast, has a tremendous potential for the development of a fishing industry which would create much-needed employment in fishing, fish processing, marketing and boat-building. A neighbouring boat-builder who operates at Ballyhack, County Wexford, Mr. Paddy Carroll, renowned for his workmanship, has had to let go four men in the last 16 months because of the decline in the industry. His yard was a hive of activity and he had a thriving business, but now it is almost dead and four men are unemployed who are excellent carpenters and boat builders. Not alone are the Government not creating jobs, but they are closing down jobs related to the fishing industry. They are unable to create any impression in Europe, just as was the case with those who sold out the Irish dairy industry this year——
I am disappointed.
——with a loss of £20 million this year alone. I have here a copy of the most recent booklet of the Irish Fishermen's Organisation which says that the EEC Commission are prepared to sacrifice the welfare of those regions in the Community which are most in need of assistance for the interests of more wealthy regions who have greater political influence. We, obviously, have no political clout whatever. In recent weeks there was a similar situation with regard to the milk super-levy. In both cases, Irish interests have been penalised by the problems caused by other countries in the Community.
If the EEC have now run short of funds it is not because those funds were depleted by Irish interests. They were depleted because of gross overproduction and excesses of some of the richer member states. Those countries extracted the maximum possible benefit from the Community funds and in the process depleted those funds to a stage where the Community could no longer function efficiently. There is absolutely no reason why countries needing assistance should be penalised through the introduction of non-selective counter measures. This is hardly what was envisaged in the Treaty of Rome which sought to remove regional and economic disparity within the Community.
In relation to mackerel fishing, we now find ourselves in the extraordinary position of one EEC fleet being subsidised while others catching the same fish a few weeks later do not qualify for the same subsidies. Yet our fish is selling on the same market and has to contend, even under normal circumstances, with greater export difficulties because of our geographical location. This is blatantly discriminatory and at complete variance with the terms and spirit of the Treaty of Rome.
It is little consolation that the President of the EEC Commission has promised to consider other ways of dealing with the problems of the Irish fishing industry. These problems have been brought to the attention of the Commission for years and the standard bureaucratic response has been that no measures can be introduced on a national basis which are at variance with either the Treaty of Rome or the Treaty of Accession. No discrimination can be allowed. The EEC Commission which are adept — and I must say the same about this Government — at defending their position through a skilful use of public relations have now reached the stage where the generality of Irish fishermen view their actions and comments as a combination of bureaucracy and hypocrisy. If the Commission are seriously concerned about the future of the Irish fishing industry they will have to do a great deal more than make vague promises about future assistance. Our Government undoubtedly have failed miserably to make it clear to the Commission that our fishing industry is under-developed and has a potential to grow, given some recognition.
Fishermen are brave men who go to sea in stormy and still waters where many dangers lurk. The most recent danger is the presence of submarines in the Irish Sea, from Donegal to Dublin and from Dublin to Cork. When I raised this issue first in the Dáil last October, the Government treated it as a joke. This is the most serious threat of all to our fishermen. The Sheralgo was pulled under by HMS Porpoise in April 1982 in a hit and run incident. The Porpoise never surfaced to help in the rescue attempt. Luckily the skipper, Ray McEvoy and his crew were saved. The Sheralgo has not yet been paid for by the British Ministry of Defence. I ask the Minister to ensure that this compensation is paid forthwith. I also ask the Minister to ensure that the report on the sinking of that ship is made public. This high-handed activity is piracy of the lowest kind. The Irish public are entitled to know the facts.
The Cité de l'Est, a French trawler, was pulled down off Tuskar in January 1983 with the loss of ten lives. The Oriel of Clogher Head in March 1984 was pulled back for two miles, until the skipper cut his line. Last weekend a Danish trawler was pulled under with a loss of three lives. There have been many sightings of submarines before and since. This is no joke. There is now a far heavier concentration of submarine activity in our waters, creating the greatest possible danger to fishermen. Everybody is asking, not just fishermen alone, why this is. What are they doing? The Government's ambivalence in relation to our involvement with NATO certainly comes into question. However, that is a debate for another day.
I am now demanding the fullest explanation of the heavy concentration of submarines in known fishing grounds off our coast, their countries of origin, their purpose and if, as yet, our Government have made those countries aware of the dangers to Irish fishermen.
Celtic Sea herring fishing has been a big bone of contention for a long time now, because of conservation measures applied over the last eight years or so. From scientific evidence, I am led to believe that there are sufficient stocks of herring in the Celtic Sea to increase quotas for Irish fishermen. Or is it the intention to demonstrate to the EEC Commission the wonderful Europeans we are? It is about time the Minister and his colleagues showed a little patriotism and looked after their own first. It is not for us to conserve fish for competitors who come with fleets of ships, including factory ships, and who would clear out more herring from the Celtic Sea in one week than our fishermen would clear out in one season.
It is not only in my time that that has been the case.
The Celtic Sea is ours. Let us benefit from it. I am calling on the Minister to allow higher quotas of herring in that area for our fishermen. The Minister of State has led us to believe that a fish processing plant is to be set up at Duncannon but in answer to a Dáil question from me the Minister said he understood there were no such proposals.
It is not the first time that has happened.
I am appealing to the Minister now to clear up this discrepancy. With the proper initiative, many jobs can be created by way of the added-value concept but I would warn against the setting up of fish processing plants which would compete unfairly with established industries and which might lead to the closure of those industries. The area of fish processing is one that the IDA should investigate more in co-operation with the Department of Fisheries and Forestry with a view to exploring potential markets and to creating more jobs.
The industry is being run on a haphazard basis. There is no firm policy. This situation has caused a drop-off in the numbers fishing. There is the situation also of the high financing of boat purchase and also the high-handed methods used by BIM in collecting repayments.
Hear, hear.
They are behaving like commercial banks and are not taking into account circumstances prevailing at any time. For them it is a question of book balancing at any cost. The ideology of this Government seems to have spread with the result that the attitude is, "We want our money; to hell with the fishermen, with the industry and with tomorrow".
The Minister and his Department must untie the bureaucratic stranglehold that is choking the industry. They must put Ireland first and create a policy of confidence, a policy that will generate enthusiasm among the many who are anxious to be involved. As a nation our seas are the richest in terms of fish resources. It should follow that we have the richest industry also. Let the Minister not sell out as his counterpart in Agriculture has done.
I am proud of the performance of the Minister for Agriculture.
Most of our harbours are out-dated and there are only miserly sums being directed towards them for purposes of maintenance. In many cases the moneys that are made available by local authorities are not spent on the harbours with the result that the facilities are adequate only for very small boats. Kilmore Quay is a typical example of this situation. Although it is one of the most fished-from harbours in the country, it is totally underdeveloped. In answer to a question tabled by me, the Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy, said he had no intention of upgrading Kilmore Quay to major harbour status. The harbour has silted so much that there is very little berthage there. I am asking the Minister to ensure that it is upgraded and that it be dredged immediately. There are 400 people employed in the fishing industry at Kilmore Quay. Surely, then, the harbour merits attention from a Wexford Minister. However, because of his failure in this regard I am asking the Minister to have the harbour attended to and upgraded.
The decision of the Minister in relation to the salmon season in Wexford has been the subject of strong reaction. In this connection I quote from a letter, dated 19 March 1984 which was sent to the Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy:
At present The Salmon Draft Net Fishing season on the Slaney begins six weeks later than in all other regions but only ends two weeks later which leaves us with a season a month shorter than any other region. Traditionally our season ended on 15th September which was six weeks later than other regions, but in 1979 as a conservation measure five weeks were taken off the end of our season. It now seems that we are being victimised for adhering to conservation attempts because we are the only region whose season has not been altered.
The letter continues in a later paragraph:
We are disappointed that the Minister did not see fit to totally ban the use of monofilament....
I will leave it to my colleague, Deputy Gallagher, to elaborate on that. The letter concludes as follows:
The fishermen in Wexford are very annoyed that in your own constituency you failed to look after them as you promised....
I am disappointed that the Minister of State is not here this evening because I am sure there is something he could learn from this debate.
He will be here tomorrow.
The Minister's contribution this evening has been a disgrace and indicates clearly his interest in the fishing industry.
I am pleased to have the opportunity of contributing to this debate. As the Minister and our main spokesman have concentrated on national matters, I shall address my remarks to some issues that relate to west Cork. In Castletownbere, for instance, the main problems are repayment problems for people who are trying to eke out a living. A couple of years ago the farming community encountered these kinds of problems but immediately the Ministers concerned went to Brussels and negotiated a very good deal. This helped farmers who were in severe financial difficulties. I should like to hear whether people with responsibility for fisheries have made any similar sort of application to Brussels. With a little help I am confident that the fishermen can cope with this difficult period. Before the debate concludes I should like to hear whether any application in the interest of these people has been made by way of the Social Fund, the Regional Fund or FEOGA. I am thinking in terms of the implementation of an interest subsidy for fishermen who are in severe financial difficulty. With Spain and Portugal due to join the Common Market soon, our fishermen will have little chance of competing with these new members especially where the larger boats are concerned. Within the terms of the Marine Credit Plan, boats are confined to those of less than 90 feet but such vessels are too small to be able to go out far enough to compete with the Norwegians, the Danes or the Dutch. I should like to have an assurance that out fishermen will be able to cope with the developments that are taking place.
It is all very well to give figures regarding the development of the industry in the past 20 years. Obviously, the figures have increased but that would not be difficult since they started at a very low base. Yet we are confined to 10,000 or 12,000 people — fishermen and processors combined — for the entire industry. That is a very small number for an island country.
Another problem with which some boat owners in west Cork have to deal is that they purchased their boats in the UK before we joined the EMS with the result that their repayments are in sterling. Since the punt is no longer linked with sterling, the situation for these fishermen is very difficult. I should like to hear whether any effort has been made to alleviate the hardship in these cases.
There is a major problem, too, for salmon fishermen who are generally operating on a fairly small scale and only on a part-time basis. In their deputations to Deputies who represent coastal areas they submit that they are harassed far more by the Navy than are fishermen from outside the country. I urge that there be some consideration for the plight of our salmon fishermen and that perhaps rather than merely confiscating nets there should be a monitoring of where the nets are being sold so that their sale could be prevented. In addition, the fish is sold into various establishments and monitoring could be carried out there as well. It is very rough on fishermen, who are trying to eke out a living, to have their entire gear confiscated.
I checked the Official Report of the debate on the Fisheries Estimate in June 1983 during which fish processing was mentioned by several speakers. Some of the technology used in the food industry should be applied to the fish industry. There is not much difference between animal protein and fish protein.
There are many IDA and other factories lying idle throughout the country. There is a lot of equipment in some of them. I doubt if the IDA have any food technologist or any technologist with expertise in fish processing. The Department of Fisheries and Forestry should ask the IDA the plans they have to develop the fish processing industry and fishmeal processing. There is very little interest in that at present.
There is a fish processing plant at Dinish Island, Castletownbere, which is of some benefit to the industry in that area. During the Estimate debate last year reference was made to the crews of Spanish boats who were causing some difficulty. I am glad the Minister took action and sorted out that problem. I would like to see more comprehensive processing facilities at Dinish Island. The IDA should visit that area. The main food section of the IDA is in Dublin and there is no food technologist in any of the regional offices.
All the staff of the IDA headquarters in South Mall, Cork, are administrators. When any person in the Cork or Kerry area, who is anxious to process food or fish, rings the Cork office he is told to ring Dublin. It sometimes takes two days to get through to Dublin because of our bad telephone system. When the person gets through to Dublin he is told to contact BIM, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, the IIRS or the National Board of Science and Technology. It is outrageous that there are so many agencies with responsibility for the fishing industry. The potential industrialist is so frustrated that he probably goes somewhere else.
Reference has been made to infrastructure relating to the fishing industry. I have to mention the problem of Schull pier again. I saw some very fine old film on a television programme last night which showed a very youthful Michael Pat Murphy in 1949, accompanied by some Clann na Poblachta aspirants, promising a pier for Schull.
(Interruptions.)
Is the Deputy saying Fianna Fáil never promised it?
Since 1970 we have had at least half a dozen Ministers for Fisheries and Forestry, not to mention the Board of Works, who really take the biscuit, talking about this. On 9 June last year I raised this matter again and I was told an underwater survey was being carried out to check out the base of the pier. I have asked several questions about Schull pier since then. I was told a few weeks ago that the Department had the report but it would take considerable time to have the matter investigated. It is a pity people do not seem to be very serious about Schull. It is a very nice peninsula and the pier would be of great benefit to the area.
Surely, if the Social Fund and the Regional Fund have any meaning for a country like Ireland, the Schull peninsula deserves some consideration. Have the Department of Fisheries and Forestry made an application for grant aid under either of those funds which would include some money for Schull pier? We do not want everything done in one year. If a start was made and a little done even over a decade, it would be a step in the right direction. Will the Minister please look into this?
I would like to refer to the problem of Baltimore boatyard. This matter was raised on 8 and 9 June last year. On that occasion many of the Deputies said if BIM did not co-operate and give fair play to that boatyard it would close down. We have recently seen reports of an arbitration award of £396,000 to that yard. I would like clarification of this matter. It is very serious when taxpayers' money is used in payment to a private boatyard. The people interested in this matter should read the Official Report of 8 and 9 June last year.
I mentioned a few other things during the debate last June such as the fisheries research field station in Kinsale. I would like to refer to the visit to Ireland of the late President Kennedy when his advisers recommended the establishment of this research station there. Since then the Department of Fisheries and Forestry have been trying to find out who owns the site. I have asked half a dozen Ministers, various secretaries of Departments and the Land Commission to acquire the site and develop this field station. It would not cost a lot but it would be very important for that area. The whole area of research and marketing for the industry is very badly neglected. It is the old story of asking people to produce, to fish, and then looking for a market. The industry should be allowed a subsidy for transport because many of our catches have to be exported quite a distance from the markets. Fishermen should also be entitled to concessions on fuel as in the case of the horticulture industry. There should also be a serious application to Brussels for funds as in the case of other sectors of the economy. If we were successful in that regard we could develop the industry to its full potential which would have a major impact in regional areas.
Debate adjourned.