I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
This Bill proposes to amend the Sea Fisheries Acts, 1952 to 1956, a group of Acts not included in the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act which recently became law. The Act of 1952 is that which, among other things, established An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The main provision of the Bill is to be found in Section 2 which authorises the making of advances from the Central Fund to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara up to a limit of £3,000,000. The present limit of £1,000,000 will soon be reached: a balance of only £14,867 remains and, when that amount is drawn, the Board would be unable to carry on their normal activities without additional funds.
These advances are repayable by the Board with interest and are used in the main to finance the purchase of boats and gear. They are also applied to meet part of the cost of fish processing stations, ice making plants and other premises and equipment. The additional £2,000,000 now being authorised will meet the Board's requirements for some years to come.
The Board consists of six members and their period of office is two years —a rather short time in which to become familiar with the complex business involved. Section 3 of the Bill extends the normal term of office to three years and introduces a system under which two of the six members will complete their term each year. The two members retiring by rotation would, of course, be eligible for reappointment. I think this provision will help to secure stability and continuity in the Board's policy—which is an important factor in the development of the sea-fishing industry.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Bill and the new sub-section which I propose to move on Committee Stage are not of immediate practical significance: they amend provisions which, although on the statute book, are not actually in operation. The provisions in question are in Section 9 of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, and relate to the licensing of vessels for sea-fishing. If those provisions were in operation, no vessel exceeding thirty-five feet over all in length could be used for sea-fishing except under and in accordance with a licence under the section.
To qualify for a licence, a vessel would have to be owned by an Irish citizen or a company the whole of the share capital of which is held by Irish citizens. This reference to share capital could prove unduly restrictive in present circumstances. A few years after the 1952 Act became law, another Act—the Mercantile Marine Act, 1955—was passed declaring that a body corporate established under and subject to the law of the State and having its principal place of business in the State is qualified to own a ship registered here. It will be noted that there is no reference to share capital in the later legislation.
A case could arise in which an Irish vessel—owned by an Irish body corporate, duly registered here and legally entitled to fish within our exclusive fishery limits—would not be eligible for a licence under Section 9 of the 1952 Act as it stands. That position could be quite untenable—particularly if the body corporate in question had been encouraged to engage in the canning or processing of fish or the production of fish meal and had found it necessary to acquire the vessel to provide raw material for its factory owing to lack of supplies from other sources. Section 4 of the Bill avoids this possibility by deleting the reference to a company and its share capital and substituting an Irish body corporate as defined in the Mercantile Marine Act, 1955.
Another restriction in Section 9 of the 1952 Act relates to a vessel operated by a person directly engaged in either the wholesale or retail sale of fresh fish. If the section were in operation, the catches of such a vessel would have to be delivered for sale to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara or disposed of according to the directions of the Board. I consider that this may be a deterrent to private interests who could appropriately be expected to invest in fishing vessels and that such a deterrent is out of place in present circumstances: there is urgent need for expansion of the fishing fleet to provide supplies for processing stations etc. and it is desired to attract private capital for that purpose. The restriction is therefore being repealed by Section 5 of the Bill.
For the convenience of Deputies perhaps I might here refer to the new subsection which I propose to move on the Committee Stage. I am advised that, if it were decided to introduce the licensing of fishing vessels under the 1952 Act as it stands, the provisions would have to be applied to every vessel exceeding 35 feet over all in length. In practice it might be quite unnecessary at the outset to go to the trouble and expense of licensing boats up to say 50 or 60 feet. In other words, the vessels desired to be brought under control might be those exceeding say 60 or 70 feet. The object of the new subsection is to enable the licensing provisions to be applied to vessels exceeding whatever length would be considered appropriate in the prevailing circumstances. Boats between 35 feet and the prescribed length would then be exempt from licensing requirements and vessels above that length would have to be licensed. This flexibility is desirable for the convenience of the general body of fishermen.
I hope I have adequately explained Sections 2 to 5 and the new sub-section: Sections 1 and 6 are usual provisions for definitions and citation and do not call for comment. If Deputies desire further information on any other point arising from this measure I shall endeavour to help them.
I should now like to refer briefly to the general question of fish supplies in view of the protests recently made against landings by certain vessels. I think these protests are based on the mistaken belief that the market cannot satisfactorily absorb all the fish at present being landed. The evidence before me, however, points to the conclusion that the market is not sufficiently supplied to meet the demand for fish.
Comparing the first five months of the present year with the corresponding period last year, I find that landings of demersal fish increased by 10% while the total prices received by fishermen increased by 19%, landings of pelagic fish increased by 14% and the prices by 50% and the value of all varieties—demersal, pelagic and shell-fish—increased by 33%. Not only are these figures an indication of a buoyant market but I am also assured by wholesalers and retailers that they could readily find outlets for more fish if regular supplies were available. This buoyancy is well illustrated by the price received by the fishermen for whiting which is the most plentiful variety in their catch of demersal fish. In the last quarter of 1958 landings of whiting rose by some 78% over those for the same quarter in the previous year and, despite the increased quantity, the average price realised was about 9% higher. In the first five months of 1959 landings of whiting were over 25% higher than in the corresponding period last year and the average price rose by almost 16%.
In addition to the existing and the untapped market for fresh fish, very substantial quantities are needed for quick-freezing, canning, curing and fish meal production. There are quick-freeze plants and a fish meal factory which have never received more than a fraction of the supplies they can cope with; canneries are being erected. They are all confronted with a shortage of raw material. They would provide considerable employment and increase our exports if only they could procure supplies of fish.
Against this background, it seems to me to be quite unrealistic to speak of surplus landings at the present time. Scarce supplies and exorbitant prices would be a most short-sighted objective: they would lead to declining demand and be detrimental to the fishermen's interests in the long run. The industry can only be developed on the basis of increased landings and reasonable prices.
It is only natural that proprietors of factories of any type, faced with a chronic shortage of raw material, should seek the means of providing supplies: it would be deplorable to see valuable premises and plant lying idle. Accordingly, it should not be regarded as abnormal when a fish meal factory or a cannery with a very large capacity for fish acquires a limited number of fishing vessels to help in supplying its requirements. That there is scope for many more Irish vessels on the fishing grounds off our coast— including grounds outside our exclusive fishery limits—is clear when we realise that huge quantities of fish are taken from those waters by the fleets of other countries: according to international statistics our share of the total catch is scarcely 10%. There is, however, no question of an influx of large vessels to this country dissociated from factories and processing plants.
In referring to foreign capital invested in the fishing industry it should be borne in mind that foreign connections are most important in establishing export markets. I need hardly add that the investment of foreign capital in an Irish company does not preclude the company from owning an Irish registered vessel. All such vessels are, however, expected to employ Irish crews as soon as suitably trained personnel become available. I hope that increasing numbers of our fishermen will avail themselves of the training facilities provided for them.
Some growing pains may be unavoidable in the early stages of development of the fishing industry. The welfare of our fishermen will, however, be carefully safeguarded and their legitimate interests will be respected. As evidence of good faith I need scarcely remind the fishermen of the various schemes introduced for their benefit in the past twelve months —arrangements to train fishermen as skippers and boys as fishermen, grants and reduced interest for boats, cheaper ice at various ports, exploratory fishing vessel on the stocks, plans for harbour development, and so on.
The fears which some of the fishermen have recently been expressing are unfounded. Should the need arise, however, I shall not hesitate to exercise the powers at my disposal to regulate the landings of larger vessels.
If at any time it becomes necessary to introduce the licensing of vessels for sea-fishing, section 9 of the 1952 Act, when amended by sections 4 and 5 of the Bill and the new subsection to be inserted, should be quite effective for that purpose. In particular I would refer to the powers contained in sub-section (5) which is not affected by the amendments and reads as follows:—
A licence may be granted subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks fit, including restrictions on sea-fishing either generally or in regard to methods of sea-fishing in particular places and as to disposal of the catches and the Minister may from time to time vary any condition or impose new conditions.
In commending the Bill to the House I might repeat that the authorisation of further advances for An Bord Iascaigh Mhara is its main object. The opportunity is also taken to make more satisfactory arrangements for membership of the Board and to amend a section—which is not in operation—by removing some restrictions relating to licensing and catches of certain fishing vessels.
