Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jun 1980

Vol. 94 No. 12

Fishery Harbour Centres Bill, 1980: Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I will make a short contribution on this, a kind rather different from that made by anyone else in so far as I want to if I can, understand the structure of this whole affair. We have the Fishery Harbour Centres Act, 1968, which scheduled five harbours in relation to which fishery harbour centre orders may be made. This amending Bill really contains only two modest amendments to that Act by providing for a more appropriate fine than £100 for any offence that might be committed. That in fact keeps in line with inflation. The other is to replace Galway as a harbour in relation to which a fishery harbour centre order might be made and to substitute another harbour Rossaveal, which is in County Galway also. There does not seem to be any dispute from what I have gathered in the course of the debate, as to the wisdom of that particular measure. My only concern is regarding the structure that makes it necessary to come back to us for authority to substitute Rossaveal. What has been happening about Rossaveal. if anything, and what will happen when we enact this Bill?

If I understand the structure of the main Act, the Rossaveal harbour will be transferred to the Minister and be his harbour, if you like—taken away from, presumably, Galway County Council. The order has to be published indicating the area that has to be acquired as part of the harbour centre and there are provisions for objections and so on. In the course of the year one sees mention of large sums being spent on fishery harbours. There have been questions here and in the other House as to the kind of area the Minister should take. It would be interesting in this House for us to know just what kind of area is involved and what he intends doing with it. I ask this question because this year there is a sum of £5 million for this kind of harbour development work. I find that hard to understand. It suggests to me that money must be paid or spent on harbours that are not included in the top five harbours—Castletownbere, Dunmore East, Galway, Howth and Killybegs, now with the substitution of Rossaveal for Galway. It seems to me that by virtue of some other authority and on somebody else's pieces of property money has been spent on harbours.

I just do not find it a happy thing to be debating a Bill of this kind without getting a fuller picture of our policy with regard to harbours generally. Are there going to be harbour centres which are going to be the recipients of a particular policy and particular expenditures? Are there going to be other harbours, the subject of another policy, administered possibly by other people? The relevant Act was passed in 1968 and the power was taken in 1968 to make orders in respect of five of these places. I am restricted by the fact that the most recent audited accounts of the Harbour Centres Fund, which was established by the Act of 1968, was signed by the Comptroller and Auditor General in October 1979 for the year ended 1977. It is quite clear that at that stage there were only two of these harbour centres in existence after 12 years, one taken in in 1969 and another taken in in 1970, after which nothing happened until we decided to substitute one place for another place.

Talking about £4 million to £5 million expenditure, I looked at total expenditure in respect of these harbour centres right up to 31 December 1978 and it came to £2.754 million. Now I am told that in this year we are proposing to spend £4 million to £5 million. Are we going to gush money suddenly into these three harbours? What is the overall policy with regard to this matter? One has only to look at the map to understand the new international law, and it really is new international law, even though the Law of the Sea Conference have not signed all their papers yet. It is an essentially new international law giving us 200 miles in the context of the EEC. It would seem that we, with Britain, are enormously important in relation to the EEC's possession of fishing waters. I do not want to go into who negotiated in 1972 and whether the negotiations were right or sufficiently informed.

In general, there seems to have been a curious lack of confidence in the whole idea of developing our fisheries. I remember leading a few delegations to a few Ministers on behalf of the fishing industry and it must be said that the present Taoiseach was the only one who finally got the point. The other two men just told us in fine language what the existing policy was. The Taoiseach did actually hear what we said and did make a change in the law. Right into the sixties the law was that it was illegal to have a boat beyond a particular size. It was a social policy administered for part-time fishermen and there was no sense of the possibilities of the whole affair for the country.

I should like to know why we have five harbour centres. Why not introduce a Bill to enable the Minister to do all these things which protect all property rights in relation to all harbour centres? Why just list five? No doubt there is a reason. It may be a good reason or a bad one, but I should like to know what it is. Are things being held up? The Minister has a map or a plan in his office, presumably. He sits there wondering whether people will object and therefore he cannot go on with the acquisition. He cannot spend money on what he has not acquired and the thing is being held up in a way in which it need not be held up if he had the power to amend the Schedule or to substitute or add to it, unless there are other reasons why that should not be so.

I do not know what the proportion of people who work in the food industry here is to the number of the farmers who grow the food. I do not know what the ratio is of what we call the processors of food to the farmers who grow it. That is not an easy figure to work out because so much of what farmers grow is exported. In relation to fish it would seem that the ratio is very modest indeed. I take it there is an overall plan to build up a fish processing industry with due energy and knowing that the costs involved in this kind of thing are all costs which must come back. We are importing £6 million worth of fish, on the 1977 figures, and exporting six times that amount. It may well be that in the international market, as a result of the 200-mile extension, there is now destabilisation in the whole business of catching fish in big boats outside the limit. In the light of what the conservation policy has got to be one would like to have some estimates made of what is procurable for processing in Ireland. I understand the structure better than other things about this. Is there any question of our processing here fish caught under the proper grant of quotas in the EEC by fishermen other than Irish fishermen? Is that fish landed at harbours here and made available for processing in factories in Ireland, replacing our imports and adding to exports?

In particular I should like to think the area to be taken in will be quite sufficient to provide for all the processing facilities and will be ambitious, whatever about the private sector money which will largely go into the actual building of the factories. Are there plans which have been operating already in conjunction with the local authorities for the development of roads? I do not know the Rossaveal scene. If you are building a harbour and you are hoping that there will be processing, you have to have a road structure. The timing of all that will have to be fitted in under some plan. I do not know whether the harbour authority the Minister will establish under this Bill will have a proper ability to get money spent on the roads servicing these harbours.

One of my great notions about economic life is that an awful lot of value can be generated out of consumption as well as out of production, out of what you do with your money as well as actually getting it, whether you save it and make it available for capital goods, or whether you spend it in a wise and sensible fashion, with good taste, and so on. Considering that eating fish on Fridays was the outstanding devotion of Irish Catholics for some centuries, it is rather interesting that fish on Fridays and fish on Wednesdays were imposed as legal obligations by Queen Elizabeth in Great Britain long before it became the United Kingdom. This was to ensure that the fishery industry under the old mercantilist regime of Great Britain would be built up. I do not think the EEC could stop an obligation being imposed on us all to restart eating fish on Fridays on a strictly non-sectarian basis.

Séamus de Brún

Ba mhaith liom focal gairid a rá ar an mBille seo agus an focal gairid sin a rá i nGaeilge os rud é go mbaineann an Bille seo go príomha le iarthar na hEireann agus le forbairt na hiascaireachta go mór mhór san gceantar seo. Baineann an Bille go mór mhór le dul chun cinn nó cur chun cinn na hiascaireachta i gcoitinne ach go mór mhór le lár ionad iascaireachta a chur ar fáil, de réir mar a thuigim, go príomha i Ros a' Mhíl. Is ceantar fior-Ghaeltachta é. Tá calafort nó cuan an-bhreá ann ina bhfuil doimhne uisce agus báid ag teacht isteach ón fharraige agus ag dul amach. Tá an cuan seo á fhorbairt le blianta maithe anois. Tá deontais mhaithe tugtha ag an Rialtas seo cheana féin leis an gcuan a fhorbairt agus tá roinnt forbartha déanta freisin ar thithe próiseála éisc insan gcuan sin. Fáiltim go mór roimh an mBille seo mar go bhfeictear dom go ndéanfar tuilleadh forbartha ar an gcuan sin agus go gcuirfear tuilleadh foirgneamh ar fáil ann chun an iascaireacht a chur ar aghaidh. Tá anghá le obair agus cabhair do na daoine atá ina gcónai sna ceantair sin, agus dá bhrí sin tá súil agam nach fada uainn an lá go bhfeicfear dul chun cinn mór ar an bpróiseál éisc agus ar an fhorbairt a deánfar ar an iascaireacht i gcoitinne agus Ros a' Mhíl ina lár ionad rathúil, ar mhaithe iascaireachta in iarthar na hÉireann.

Fáiltim roimh an mBille agus molaim an tAire as ucht an Bille a thabhairt isteach agus é a chur ar fáil dúinn. Is Bille é nach bhfuil aon aighneas ná aon chur ina choinne, is dóigh liom, ag aon duine ar thaobh ar bith den Teach mar a bhí sé san Teach eile. B'fhéidir go bhfuil malairt tuairimí ag daoine faoin mbealach is fearr le riachtanais an Bhille a thabhairt chun críche, ach nil aon aighneas ag baint leis. Molaim an tAire agus guím gach rath ar an bpróiseál éisc i Rossaveal, go mbeidh tuilleadh fostaíochta ag na daoine atá ina gcónaí sna ceantair sin.

Mr. Staunton

I should like to contribute very briefly on this the Bill which concerns a transfer of emphasis from Galway to Rossaveal. The Bill is not controversial. We support it. I just want to make one or two remarks about harbour development on the west coast.

I note from the Minister's speech that, under the amending legislation, the harbours to be developed as centres are Castletownbere, Dunmore East, Howth, Killybegs and Rossaveal. Of course, there cannot be any quibble about the choice of any of these centres. Castletownbere is the major fishery harbour development on the south-west coast. Dunmore East is very significant in the south-east. Killybegs is predominant, and Howth, on the east coast, is very significant. In talking about the Rossaveal development the Minister speaks to a large extent about the fact that it is in the Gaeltacht. Of course it is necessary to develop the Gaeltacht.

I want to speak very briefly about the Mayo coastline. Off the north-west Mayo coastline there is another major pier, a major harbour development, at Ballyglass outside Belmullet. It is a very significant area because it is on the main sea route round the country. The Donegal fishing fleet catches a substantial part of its catch off the north Mayo coast. This harbour was built about three or four years ago with an investment of something approaching £½ million. It is in an area giving shelter. It has ready access to probably the most significant fishing grounds off the country, but there has been no development whatever of the harbour area, apart from the harbour itself. It is worthy of consideration by the Minister because Donegal people are fishing there a great deal. It is an area in which an indigenous Mayo fishing fleet can develop. The Minister places particular significance on the place of Rossaveal in the Gaeltacht. Ballyglass is also in the Gaeltacht. For many reasons I feel the Minister should look at it with a view to its being included in this separate list at some future stage.

I welcome too the idea that Rossaveal comes under the Minister's responsibility for direct development. The danger is that, if these harbours do not get special privileges, with piecemeal development, lack of co-ordination and a lack of a sense of responsibility, a number of Government agencies may weaken their development. For that reason I support this Bill.

Professor Keating

I also support the Bill, but I want to take this opportunity to make some comments both on what is in the Minister's speech and also on some wider aspects. It happens that, both from the sea and the shore, I know the Rossaveal situation. I have to say, in fairness, that originally I thought the attraction of Galway as a larger city, with chandlers, with pubs, with restaurants, with other facilities, would outweigh the advantages of Rossaveal one of which is the advantage of a shorter distance from the fishing grounds. I thought that the tug-o'-war of the real economic attraction of the two places Galway would win, but I am very happy to say I was wrong. I am very happy with the figures the Minister has given indicating that Rossaveal is now No. 5 on the list of landings in the whole country, and indicating that it has far exceeded the port of Galway. It is necessary that the major fishing harbours should not be subject—with the best will in the world towards local authorities—to piecemeal development, and not subject to the various tug-o'-wars for money and for facilities of the kind local authorities and county councils encounter. It is a good thing to have a small number, in this case five, of the crucial harbours taken under central control for their planning, their development and their growth.

In passing I should like to ask the Minister to think about a few more. Howth for the east coast is fine. Castletownbere for the south-coast is fine. Rossaveal we are accepting. It is winning the battle with Galway, and good luck to it. Killybegs is already very well established and dynamic and full of people with a great deal of commercial vitality, acumen and knowledge of the sea and how to catch fish. Its future is healthy. I am not saying we should multiply these special harbours to any considerable extent because their very success involves a concentration of effort.

From Castletownbere to Rossaveal is a long way. I was wondering whether somewhere on the southern end of Clare, or perhaps in the Shannon Estuary, or the north Kerry shore, might have an argument to be made in its favour, because the distances are considerable, and because the price of fuel for the big trawlers has expanded much more dramatically than the price of fish. In 1973 the price of oil was 2.50 dollars a barrel and now it is something over 32 dollars a barrel. The distance of the fishing ground from the developed harbour is becoming very significant.

I know that experts have been into this. It is an area in which I have always had an interest. As a veterinarian I have always been a bit interested in marine biology that I look on as a parallel science. As someone concerned with agriculture I look forward to the day when mariculture—the farming of the sea as distinct from the hunting of the sea which is all that fishing is—will become very important in Ireland. The argument might be made for somewhere in north Kerry. I feel that the distance from Rossaveal to Killybegs is very substantial, and Ballyglass is a good location. I have no connection with the district. This is in no sense a representational observation on my part, because it is a place I know a little but I have no connection with it. The argument might be made to have a look at Ballyglass. Of the existing five around the coast—I did not mention Dunmore—there are two in the east, one in the south, one in the far north-west in Killybegs, and one in the middle of the west coast. Somewhere in the north Mayo area or on the south side of Donegal Bay looks right. There is a very good fishing ground there. There may be an argument for one somewhere around the mouth of the Shannon or a bit south of that. It is not an enormous increase. It is going from five special harbours to seven. That is reasonable in view of the length of our coastline and the size and richness of the Continental Shelf.

I have a sense of omission from the Minister's speech. I know this is a little Bill and in opening the Second Stage debate the natural inclination is to keep the content of the Minister's Second Stage speech down, so that Senators do not go chasing after everything. If we are talking about the development of special harbours, we can only put that in the context of the development of the fishing industry. It is in a lack of any sense of perspective for the fishing industry that I find a genuine omission from the Minister's speech. I am a little bit disappointed. I am not now going to try to open a debate on the future of Irish fishing. I believe it to be so important that I think that this chamber ought to do more than to put down a marker, as I will be doing over the next few minutes.

I was in the Irish chair at the Council of Ministers when our Minister for Foreign Affairs moved, with immense distinction and credit to Ireland, into the President's chair of the Council of Ministers during the Irish Presidency of the Council of Ministers in the period in office of the Coalition Government. One of the things that was continuously arising was the matter of fisheries policy. It is a very troubled and difficult area, and I am not going to enter into it now. From my personal experience, from experience of friends in the industry, from reading regularly the admirable periodical The Irish Skipper, which I would recommend to anyone interested in the Irish fishing industry, I know that the animating thought when we were talking about community policy on fish was that Ireland would formulate what was practically going to be a crash programme to make dramatic advance.

I want to deviate to say that, in our maritime and fishing tradition, if you go far enough back, we have one of great courage, skill and success. What destroyed us was the transition to steam trawlers in the last century at a time when there was capital starvation in Ireland. It was left as a part-time, an artisan, a small boat, a traditional and in-shore fishery. While the great east coast ports in Britain, which were heavily industrialised, heavily capitalised, which could call on the finances of the city of London to make this dramatic leap of technology, simply took over the North Atlantic fisheries, we were left out in a piece of what I would describe as economic imperialism. It was one of the many ways in which we suffered from being part of the United Kingdom. We suffered by the loss of industry after industry, and we suffered because our fishing industry, based on small in-shore boats and traditional methods, was not able to accumulate the capital to make the technological leap. Nothwithstanding the existence of a certain number of large and modern trawlers, we still have not got strong economic structures from trawler owning, through to processing, into distribution, to market, despite the admirable efforts of people like BIM.

It was axiomatic when we undertook the effort to develop a common fisheries policy in the Community and we agreed to participate in it, that we would make a very strenuous effort to overcome the disadvantages of the past. I remember with acute annoyance hearing people from Germany and from other Community countries referring to what I consider the Irish Continential Shelf as the Community's Continental Shelf. It is still the Irish Continental Shelf but, if we do not catch the fish on it, they will, because they are much richer and much more technologically advanced. There are two completely separate things. One has a social aspect and is the protection of the life of the small and disadvantaged communities on the west coast where they depend on the land, which is a poor and grudging land often, and work it very hard, and they depend on the sea.

These are poor people, short of capital, short of technology. Some of them are part-time fishermen, some of them are full-time with small boats, in-shore fishermen, and they have to be protected. Even the most brilliant of them have to be helped to make the transition to large-scale modern capitalist intensification, but that is not enough. That is only part of a fisheries policy. The other part is to build the structures, using the very largest vessels, the most advanced technology which does not even exist in Europe any more—it is now the prerogative of the Japanese—the most capital intensive and sophisticated and productive processing within Ireland, and the follow up to intensive and sophisticated marketing which gives maximum added value to us.

We have the great good fortune that the North Atlantic Drift brings energy to our shore. It brings feed for fish to our shore. It brings fish to our shore. The failure to develop in a modern way, as well as protecting the artisan fisherman, the in-shore fisherman, and to develop a distant water large-scale efficient fleet is a very glaring failure in our whole economic development. It is very serious for employment and very serious in the throwing away of a resource that is there on our doorstep.

Time is running out. We have not changed in the period since the middle seventies when the original standards about a common fisheries policy arose in the Community. We have not used those resources to advance our position very rapidly as was envisaged at that time. The time is approaching when the rigours of a common policy will become more and more uniform and commun au taire, rather than responding to the demands of individual nations. The British, with a very highly developed industry, have fought a tremendous rearguard battle and that is what it has been. If we do not use the distant water advantages we have to catch those fish in Irish boats and land them for Irish processing, Irish distribution, and Irish sale, then other people will do it. We have already squandered nearly half a decade and, if we squander the next half decade, the door will be slammed and it will be too late.

I am disappointed about the lack of effectiveness for the capital-intensive, big, highly-developed industry and the lack of a sense of desperate urgency. If the present structure of the Irish fishing industry vis-á-vis the Danes or the British, or the French or the Germans, is a reflection of the draining of capital out of the country, a reflection of our past economic history and our past economic exploitation, to try to come on the scene now with a crash programme in an industry where the return on capital is not very high, is, in my view, totally impossible without major State aid and major State participation. Either we have a large scale, heavily funded but ultimately very profitable, big scale fishing industry, modern efficient fishing industry, or else in the long term we leave the fish of our Continental Shelf to the goats of Britain, France, Germany and Denmark. It is a choice that we can still make. It will not be a choice for much longer. I am sorry that a sense of a wider perspection and a sense of urgency was not in the Minister's opening speech.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator mind repeating the last few sentences?

Professor Keating

I cannot repeat them exactly but I hope I can repeat the sense. Firstly, the Continental Shelf is a huge resource. Secondly, we have not been able to take advantage of it for reasons of our economic history and the capital starvation and indeed the educational starvation in technological matters of our people. Thirdly, the European Economic Community's Common fisheries policy is developing at such a rate that, if we do not catch the fish by modern intensive large-scale methods, other people will do it. Fourthly, when we started negotiations and indeed concessions in this area in the middle seventies, it was implicit that there would be a dramatic crash programme to expand large-scale efficient fishing—I am making a separation between that and in-shore artisan fishing—that there would be a crash programme to dramatically expand the large-scale high technology, high capital fisheries, to exploit the Continental Shelf for Ireland. Finally, since we are at a time of world economic difficulty, since the fishery industry now is an area of low profitability, this will simply not happen at all, if it is not done with major State intervention. It is potentially very profitable but it will not be done on the basis of private enterprise and that we do not have for ever. We squandered half a decade and if we squandered another half decade it will be too late.

Mr. McDonald

I shall be very brief. I should like to thank Senator Keating for doing the needful. From reading and listening to the Minister's Second Reading speech last night, there was one point I noticed: he did not refer to the fact that this scheme under section 3, Rossaveal, has been significantly grant-aided from the regional development fund. Back in 1976, I spent a week with Commissioner Thompson in the west of Ireland trying to sell the needs and the benefits of providing adequate facilities there for the fishermen of the entire west coast. My recollection is that the port and the entire project were significantly aided. It is one of those on which we based our greatest argument for enhanced contributions for the usage of the fund. We based the argument on the west of Ireland, especially in the fishing industry. Not only did it come up but it was tied in with the discussion we had then on the law of the sea and on the extension of the Irish-Community fishing limits. Will the Minister confirm, when he is replying, whether or not my recollection is correct that the Community did come in on that? In 1976, and indeed before that, during the time I was President of the Transport Commission, I had the opportunity of looking not only at all the major sea ports but at all the major fishing sea ports, including the ports in Greenland. If we are sincere about equipping our fishermen—and I regret that they appear to be going through a lean time at present—we must provide the very best infrastructure. It is not just a matter of improving the existing facilities. The decision to take Rossaveal and to build it up was an excellent decision. We need a little more of that. We have got to put our fishermen in a position where they will be able to compete economic-wise, cost-wise, with all their competitors. I hope the fact that the Minister's Department are now taking over this port means that we will not have a typical situation where, after years of looking for even the smallest improvement, the Minister and his Department will respond or react. I hope that in this situation, where as it were the ball is at our own feet, the Minister's officials and his experts will be one step ahead of the industry in providing and enhancing the facilities, constantly putting our fishermen in a position where they will be able to compete adequately with the most modern trawlers and the most intensively financed competitors, from whatever other country they come.

I am confident that the Minister will be able to give this particular area a vital boost. The other facilities and infrastructures mentioned need a greater amount of expenditure. I remember that during the discussion with the Greenlanders they were sore with the United Kingdom colleagues, that they were pirating their waters. When I asked our own people for figures, they had only one boat which was in excess of 100 or 101 feet. I am not an expert on fishing—I am very much a midlander—but nevertheless, I would like to ask the Minister whether or not the regional development fund has played any part and whether or not it can be utilised to make a more dynamic contribution to the provision of the infrastructures that the fishing industry needs.

Minister for Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Power)

I compliment everybody who contributed here. It was nice to see that the people who did contribute had a serious interest in the matter we were dealing with in regard to Rossaveal. Some of their remarks were critical and some complimentary, but at least they dealt with the matter in hand and did not depart from the subject, as was done in the other House.

Senator Howard welcomed two matters, the increase in fines and the commitment to Rossaveal to change from Galway. The probable cost, based on present prices, of carrying out work there will be in the region of £4 million to £5 million. All interested parties in the area have been informed. I can give you a list of the bodies. Senator FitzGerald mentioned we would have to tie up with the local county council. We had a representative from Galway County Council, Mr. Callaghan, on that and a substitute is required. They should be in a position to deal with the infrastructure needed in the area while the port is being developed. I emphasise for the benefit of people here that while we have designated these five particular areas as major centres that is not the end of the road for other areas and, indeed Senator Brugha has a particular interest in Daingean Uí Chúise. Dingle is designated in a Gaeltacht area; Roinn na Gaeltachta have been involved in major dredging in that particular area. In 1975 a quarter of a million pounds was spent on it and Kerry County Council have agreed to take responsibility for any maintenance dredging that will be needed in the meantime. The responsibility for dredging and harbour maintenance rests with them. Bord Iascaigh Mhara have also put in an ice plant and fish processing is going on in one particular firm in the Dingle area. If you are not among the five, it does not mean you are left out.

Dúirt Senator O'Brien gur aontaigh sé leis na téarmaí a bhí anseo. Senator Mulcahy made a suggestion that we should look upon Dublin port and the old wharf there as being a place they might develop for fishery landings. There are a few points against that—one is the distance they would have to steam to get to the fishing grounds, also there is a possibility that pilots will be needed to bring boats in to Dublin Harbour. It is a good suggestion. We have already given facilities there and it is something that we might look at.

Senator FitzGerald asked about the structure of the Bill and what structures we have. When the Bill is passed an order will be made declaring Rossaveal a fishery harbour centre. The area defined in the order will vest in me responsibility for the further development of the harbour in its control and management, operation and maintenance. That will all pass on to me. The fine is increased from £100 to £500. Senator FitzGerald looked upon that as being in keeping with inflation. It is not intended that it should be nor do I agree that it is—it is more a deterrent for people who break the law. It is much easier to get £500 now than it was when this law was first introduced. I hope it will be more of a deterrent to people who are likely to break it.

In the Gaeltacht area up to now, the Gaeltacht were responsible for the work that went on, and in the five designated harbours we will be responsible. These arose because we got a report from a Swedish expert. He outlined the priorities, where the major work should go on, and Rossaveal has been picked instead of Galway because of the reasons that were set out in my opening remarks—it will have all the facilities and it will have the infrastructure as well, hopefully, on the mainland to allow the produce of the fishing industry to be transported or exported elsewhere. It will also have ferry facilities for the Aran Islands, which is something that we are thinking about.

That means though that other works go on elsewhere and when we get representations about a particular area it is surveyed and the Office of Public Works are informed, to get a preliminary idea of the expenditure involved. Then we do something in the nature of a cost-benefit analysis because the eventual cost of the work is weighed against the fish landings that were there or the projected fish landings. We do what is necessary realistically when we get Finance approval for that. It is unlikely that there will be expenditure this year in Rossaveal but we hope that in the first year about £750,000 will be expended and over the period that it takes to do the work, that should amount to about £4 million to £5 million.

Some Senators remarked that there was a lack of confidence in the industry. I do not see that in Killybegs or Castletownbere. We have big work going on in Howth at the moment and in Dunmore East. I do not see any lack of confidence. The greatest tribute that can be paid to the confidence in the fishing industry is that this year five new boats will come into the fleet in Killybegs. They will be over 120 feet long and will cost £2.2 million each. They will be the most sophisticated boats available. Unfortunately, they have to be built outside the country but possibly we will remedy that eventually. They will be in a position to harvest the sea and fish side by side out to any distance with any other boat in the Community and these are all first class with fine Irish born skippers who have learned their trade at home.

To be realistic, the five fishery harbour centres designated at the moment are enough to be going on with. Work can go on in others. Not very long ago, during the life of the present Government, it was decided to carry out significant works in Schull and they very much appreciated it. I visited Clare Island recently. I was saddened to see that work that had been going ahead has now stopped, work on the extension and other facilities to the pier which they badly need, because of difficulty with the contractor. It is sad to see steel and other articles there rusting on the pier for want of a decision. It is something I must look at.

I mention these things to indicate that you do not have to be designated as a major centre for the work to go ahead. I agree that fishing and the fishing industry does not play a sufficient part in the economy of a maritime country like ours that has wonderful fishing grounds, natural harbours, a long coastline and placed in a position where we are nearer to fish than any other member country. We regret that. We are improving our position, thanks to The Hague Agreement; we had commitments from our fellow states that we were allowed to double our catch between 1975 and 1979. We did not do that but we still have that commitment from the member states. That is the target we aim at and future quotas and total allowable catches that we will be given will be based on that.

Our processing industry has improved. We have processors. Senator FitzGerald remarked that we should try to encourage foreign based industry to process. We have a tie up with a Spanish firm, Pescanova, who are processing now under the name of the subsidiary firm Eiranovo in Castletownbere.

Senator FitzGerald remarked that some years ago there was a law passed that fish would be eaten on Fridays and Wednesdays in Britain. He gave Queen Elizabeth the credit for that. I knew her father bore the proud title of defender of the faith. I did not realise that he had passed on that attribute to his daughter as well. It is nice to know even at this late stage that you can learn something about Queen Elizabeth and appreciate the interest she had in ensuring the faith lived on. Maybe she has a little sin to answer for, fish being tied up with penalising somebody, that eating fish has been looked upon as a penalty for too long.

Dúirt an Seanadóir de Brún trí Ghaeilge gur aontaigh sé leis an méid atá á dhéanamh againn anseo. Dúirt sé go raibh fhios aige gur chuir Roinn na Gaeltachta £1 milliún isteach ins an gcuan seo agus tá fhios agam féin go bhfuil an-spéis aige in iarthar na hÉireann.

Senator Staunton mentioned Ballyglass. I am aware it is very convenient to the fishing grounds. It is enticing for the Killybegs and Donegal fishermen to use it. It has not got the facilities it should have. More recently when I visted Achill Island the fishermen there pointed out that maybe Darby's Point would be more suitable. It would entail considerable expenditure. If improved, it would be a more suitable harbour than Ballyglass. I agree that increased oil costs and steaming costs have made fishing an expensive business. You have to go very far. We are examining Ballyglass. Senator Keating agreed with the change from Galway to Rossaveal. I agree that it is important when major harbour centres are being developed that the further they are removed from petty local pressures the better. He mentioned the distance between Castletownbere and Rossaveal and the need to establish another fishing port or fishing harbour there. Unfortunately, in the report that Bjuke presented to us he did not indicate that there was any possible harbour suitable in Clare or north Kerry or even on the coast line that would be suitable. I know Dingle has limited advantages and Ballyglass of course, as already mentioned, has advantages too. I am conscious of the fact that when you go to considerable expenditure to improve a port, fishing grounds do not always remain static and the fish will decide to move away to another area from places that were traditionally good. It is a bit awkward to have to follow them with further development of that area too.

I do not share the pessimism expressed by Senator Keating with regard to the future of Irish fishing. I am convinced that we will have the benefit of a common fishing policy within a year. This is something that has the fear of the unknown, the uncertainty about the future has been a deterrent to investment in the industry and every indication at recent meetings we have had with the Council Fishery Ministers is that we will have that common fishery policy. There is a greater awareness and anxiety to bring it about. Our number one priority will be to get an exclusive zone for Irish fishermen and to get the very best possible deal for them. We can base our arguments with regard to quotas on The Hague agreement and that is based on the continuing and progressive development of the Irish fishing industry. We can advance some excuses. We had to take conservation measures with regard to our herring fishing in the Celtic Sea and off the Donegal Coast, purely from a conservation point of view. We suffered as a result of that and we are hoping that it will not be held against us when the quotas are being distributed. We have got very good reason to hope that we will get an increased mackerel quota to compensate in part for the amount of herring that we will be losing. In a recent visit to Killybegs perhaps I got a little bit carried away but I felt the enthusiasm, and hope for the future there seems to be contagious.

We have every reason to be optimistic and I do not agree that we have been idle for the last 50 years or that we have thrown away something that we had and that we should have cherished. There is no great lack of urgency in the Irish fishing industry. There has been a great involvement of State aid, both advisory and monetary, and I think that the criticism is ill-founded that there is no crash programme needed in our industry at the moment. We have an ongoing, progressive and improving programme.

Senator McDonald mentioned the regional fund. He is correct in saying that a grant was made from the EEC to Roinn na Gaeltachta in 1975 and it is nice to know that a land lubber like Senator McDonald—and I share that distinction with him—took such an interest some years ago in the fishing industry and particularly in Rossaveal, that he was responsible for getting a grant for them during his term in Europe. I look upon that as a compliment, I would like to bask too in the reflected glory Senator McDonald claims. You do not have to be born in a stable to enjoy the Derby. Neither do you have to be born with a tang of salt on your lips to have an interest in the fishing industry.

I am aware that through the western package there is great hope for us improving our infrastructure in the west of Ireland. I know somebody had the bright idea that Mr. Gundelach in one of his trips here be brought on a reconnaissance flight in a helicopter over the west of Ireland, and at that particular time in the European Parliament I mentioned to him that we did not wish to have motor roads as in Sicily but we would settle for reasonably good roads and he agreed. He was amazed when he saw the bad roads that we had there and said they needed to be improved.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí a bhí páirteach sa díospóireacht ar an mBille seo. Is breá liom go bhfuilimid ar aon intinn san Seanad agus san Dáil ar thaobh na daoine a théann ag iascaireacht agus chun na fearaisti is fearr a chur ar fáil dóibh agus an slí bheatha is fearr a chur ar fáil dóibh freisin.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.