I move——
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
Committee on Finance. - Vote 38—Fisheries.
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £404,500 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including Sundry Grants-in-Aid.
In the past 12 months steady progress has been maintained in the development of our sea and inland fisheries. Perhaps I might begin by briefly mentioning a few items to illustrate the position. In 1963 the value of exports of fish and fishery products of all kinds reached the record figure of £1,719,000. The estimated income from angling tourism rose by over 30 per cent to the new peak of £1,760,000, which may be described as invisible exports. Thus exports, visible and invisible, arising from our fisheries were worth about £3,500,000 in 1963. The number of boys in training as fishermen has doubled in the past 12 months and a residential training course for them has been inaugurated. The co-operative movement among fishermen has continued to grow. A measure of international agreement has been reached which will result in the extension of our exclusive fishery limits.
The implementation of the Government's Programme of Sea Fisheries Development, published as a White Paper a couple of years ago, is being pushed ahead as rapidly as possible. The expansion of our sea fishing industry is being fostered by a variety of facilities and incentives including large grants for boats, advisory and marketing services, training of fisheries personnel, development of fishery harbours and extension of exploratory and research work. I have just announced further valuable concessions under which all existing hire purchasers of new fishing boats, whenever issued, now enjoy the benefit of grants of 25 per cent of the capital unaccrued at 1 April, 1962. A survey team from the United States have recently carried out an appraisal of our development plans and drafted a report which we shall study with keen interest.
In 1963 the value of landings of sea fish came to £1,414,000, made up of £829,000 for demersal or white fish, that is whiting, plaice, cod etc., £231,000 for pelagic fish, mainly herrings, and £354,000 for shellfish. The ten species which earned most money for the fishermen were herrings, whiting, plaice, cod, lobsters, Dublin Bay prawns, ray, skate, haddock, soles and periwinkles in that order. Dublin Bay prawns showed the most notable increase in the catch—the quantity rising from 17,000 cwt. to 29,000 cwt. and the value, at £101,000, ranking a close second to lobsters among the shellfish. The higher landings also led to an appreciable increase in the exports of Dublin Bay prawns.
Efforts to promote greater home consumption of fish have been intensified. The national fish cookery competition, sponsored by the Fishing Industry Development Committee, was extended to secondary as well as vocational schools and up to 18,000 students took part in this year's competition. The high standard of cooking displayed at all stages of the competition was a glowing tribute to the school managements and their staffs and I would like to record my appreciation of their unstinting efforts in this direction. A second fish cookery competition, confined to members of the Irish Countrywomen's Association, was recently completed and here again the results were gratifying. Further promotion work is being carried out through the medium of the press, radio and television and fish cookery demonstrations are being organised at many centres.
The grant-in-aid to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara has again been increased—this year by almost 40 per cent to £275,000 which includes £180,000 for current operations and £95,000 for capital purposes. The main capital items are the grants of 25 per cent of the cost of new boats, new engines and new winches. Repayable advances up to £275,000 from the Central Fund to the Board have also been authorised, chiefly for financing the purchase of boats and gear. Twenty-two new boats ranging from 26 to 56 feet in length were issued by the Board to hire purchasers during the year ended 31st March, 1963. The first of the new 65 feet fishing boats designed and built by the Board has gone into commission and is operating satisfactorily.
The Board are maintaining production in their factories at Killybegs and Galway on a co-operative basis involving arrangements with fishermen for supplies of fish and with members of the fish trade for disposal of the products; apart from this, the Board have withdrawn from fish trading and can therefore concentrate on market development for the benefit of the industry generally. Significant progress has been made in the formation of co-operative societies of fishermen to engage in trading activities. The example of the Dingle fishermen has been followed by the National Fishermen's Marketing Co-operative Society, Ltd., on the Dublin Fish Market and by Donegal Co-operative Fisheries, Ltd., at Killybegs.
The Board's fleet maintenance scheme and the advisory service, which are open to all fishermen, are helping to increase productivity. In pursuit of the continued improvement of catching techniques, a Danish master fisherman has been engaged to advise fishermen, particularly on the most efficient means of mounting and using nets.
Training and education for the catching side of the industry are vitally important because of the highly skilled nature of the occupation: the fundamental need is a regular assimilation of trained men. I am glad to say that considerable progress is being made in this direction and that an encouraging feature is the growing interest shown by boys in taking up fishing as a career. Some 70 boys are at present training to become fishermen and there are over 40 former trainees employed as fully qualified crew members. Further applications from boys of not less than 16 years of age were recently invited under the scheme and the response has been satisfactory. Interviews for eligible candidates at convenient centres are now in progress. Boys receive allowances of £5 per week and this is equivalent to a scholarship of £520 over a two-year period.
With a view to ensuring that boys will derive the maximum benefit from their training, residential courses have been arranged at the Naval base, Haulbowline, with the co-operation of the Department of Defence and the County Cork Vocational Education Committee. The first of these courses has recently been satisfactorily completed and I should like to convey my sincere appreciation to all who contributed to its success. Two further courses, each of about ten weeks' duration and catering for 20 or 25 trainees, will be held later this year. Instruction in nautical subjects is provided by Naval Service personnel at Haulbowline; general educational subjects are taught at Cobh vocational school and instruction in net mounting and mending is given by a competent fishing skipper.
Under the more advanced scheme for training fishermen as skippers, 43 men have so far completed courses and a further ten are at present attending a course at Galway in preparation for the examination for certificates of competency. Two experienced fishing skippers have also just completed a special course of eight weeks' instruction in navigation at the Irish Nautical College, Dún Laoghaire. Fishermen admitted under the scheme receive a basic payment of £7 a week plus allowances for dependants up to a maximum of £6 a week.
With the clearance of essential preliminaries, construction work on major fishery harbours is now going ahead at Killybegs and Dunmore East and is about to begin at Castletownbere. Consideration of the results of technical investigations at Howth and Galway is well advanced.
Negotiations have been proceeding for the acquisition, by agreement with the owners, of properties necessary for development of the harbours but some difficulties have been experienced at Castletownbere and Killybegs. A Bill providing compulsory powers of acquisition is in course of preparation but I would appeal for the voluntary co-operation of property owners in the public interest.
Improvement schemes are planned for several of the smaller fishing centres and landing places and proposals for others are being considered.
Rational exploitation of our fishery resources is of the utmost importance and this can only be based on a sound knowledge of the species of fish in our waters and the factors governing their reproduction, growth and survival. The scientific team of the Fisheries Division not only conduct direct investigations in Irish waters but also collaborate with scientists in other countries through such organisations as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
Among species of fish being studied here are herring and mackerel in the pelagic group, whiting and plaice in the demersal range and lobsters, crawfish, Dublin Bay prawns, oysters and mussels in the shellfish category. Offshore investigations are conducted from the exploratory fishing vessel Cú Feasa.
To complement the work of the Cú Feasa, a second research vessel of 65 feet in length is under construction at Killybegs and a sum of £30,000 towards the cost is included in the Estimate. This boat will be in commission before the end of the current financial year.
The European Fisheries Conference, which assembled in London three times in the period December to March last, reached a wide measure of agreement on a fishery regime after prolonged and difficult negotiations. The Fisheries Convention drafted by the Conference has been signed but has not entered into force pending ratification. Under this Convention Ireland's exclusive fishery limits will be extended to six miles and, in the further belt between six and 12 miles, the right to fish will be confined to fishermen from countries which have habitually fished there in the period of ten years before the end of 1962. The six-mile zone will be completely exclusive to Irish fishermen after 1966; in the meantime there will be transitional periods to allow some foreign fishermen to adapt themselves to their exclusion from the belt between three and six miles. Within the entire twelve-mile limit Ireland will have power to regulate the fisheries and to enforce regulations. It is my earnest hope that Irish fishermen will rapidly equip themselves to reap the full benefit of the new regime.
On the inland fisheries side I have pleasure in reporting that 1963 was a year of record achievements: taking commercial fishing and tourist angling into account, the season proved to be by far the most satisfactory and profitable up to the present.
The salmon catch in 1963 approximated to that of 1962 which had been the best for many years. Prices were, however, better maintained with the result that the value of salmon exports exceeded £857,000, the highest figure ever recorded. The quantity of salmon exported, 23,700 cwts., was also a near record figure, being the highest since 1935.
In 1963 there was a change in the pattern of the runs of fish: the spring runs into the "early" rivers showed a marked and welcome improvement on those of previous years although, due to adverse fishing conditions, catches in the first three months of the year bore little relationship to the strength of the runs. Grilse arrived in force about the middle of June and the favourable flow of water enabled them to enter the rivers more satisfactorily than in 1962. The past spawning season has been reported as very good in most areas. It is to be hoped that 1962 and 1963 are the forerunners of a series of good salmon fishing seasons.
The state of the salmon stocks largely depends on how the smolts fare when they migrate to the open sea. We have no control over conditions there and knowledge of that phase of the life history of the salmon is generally lacking. Once the adult fish return to the rivers, however, the staffs of the boards of conservators can help to protect them from unlawful practices and I think that the spawning records of recent years testify to a fair measure of protection. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that some strengthening of this service is required and, with a view to finding ways and means by which this can be realised, I have been engaged in consultations with the Council of Conservators which represents all the salmon fishing interests.
Once again I should like to draw attention to the extent of the State grants to the Salmon Conservancy Fund from which payments are made to boards of conservators to supplement their normal income. This year the grant has been stepped up to £27,000.
I am glad to report that the major improvement work of installing fish passes in the Inagh river at Ennistymon, County Clare, has been completed and there is every evidence that these passes have enabled the salmon to surmount what was previously an impassable barrier. The salmon hatchery and rearing station at Cong, County Mayo, likewise are practically completed and were used to a limited extent during the past hatching season.
The biologists and engineers of the Fisheries Division continue to investigate the various problems affecting our inland fisheries. The effects of arterial drainage and of hydro-electric schemes on stocks of migratory fish are engaging particular attention.
Work on the rehabilitation of the stocks of salmon in the river Lee continues apace with the active co-operation of the Electricity Supply Board, the Inland Fisheries Trust and the Cork Board of Conservators. Predator reduction on a large scale is being continued this year and further experimental work is being carried out at the fish passes with a view to facilitating the downstream movement of smolts past the hydro-electric dams, which is one of the major problems.
A number of studentships and bursaries in fishing science are being offered as part of a long term programme drawn up in consultation with the university authorities. Projects on which students will be engaged this year include some aspects of the problems arising from arterial drainage work on the River Moy.
Steady progress is being made in the development of eel fishing. Exports of eels continued to rise in 1963 and reached 3,122 cwts. valued at £45,313 as against 2,038 cwts. valued at £33,772 in 1962.
Last year I drew attention to a substantial increase to £75,000 in the grant-in-aid to the Inland Fisheries Trust and mentioned that grants at that level had been assured for the next three years. The object was to enable the Trust to plan ahead and undertake an accelerated programme of development work secure in the knowledge that the necessary funds would be available. The House will be glad to see that the Government have found it possible to increase the Trust's grant-in-aid still further to £90,000 in the current year. In deciding on that increase the Government were influenced by the magnificent achievement in 1963 when the estimated income from angling tourism rose by about 30 per cent from £1,346,000 to £1,760,000 while the estimated number of visitors rose from 58,000 to 75,000. The fact that most of the benefit from the expenditure is felt outside the normal tourist areas renders the Trust's work all the more valuable.
Once again I would like to pay tribute to the members of local organisations who are co-operating so wholeheartedly with the Trust and Bord Fáilte in the work of building up our angling tourist industry. Without such co-operation and local initiative, much of this work could not succeed. I should also like to thank those generous individuals and firms who have assisted by donating prizes at the many angling competitions and festivals which are held throughout the country and serve a useful purpose in publicising our angling amenities.
Rainbow trout farming is making steady progress. The existing commercial fish farms are operating successfully and another is getting under way on the Milltown river near Dingle, County Kerry. Exports of rainbow trout in 1963 increased to 1,362 cwts., valued at £25,739, from 854 cwts. valued at £16,740 in 1962.
I shall have a very short Fisheries (Amendment) Bill before the House this week to continue the existing provisions for rates on fisheries which would otherwise expire at the end of September next. I am also considering other matters which will require legislation but I could not expect to get the necessary Parliamentary time for them before the summer recess.
I hope Deputies will find the new format of the Fisheries Estimate more convenient. While the subheads in Part II are now less numerous as a result of an appropriate grouping of sea and inland development activities, all the usual details are available in Part III. For this important service there is an increase of almost one-third to £607,300 in the net Estimate, which I confidently recommend to the House.
I move:
That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.
I do so principally because of the numerous pronouncements made by the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, who is responsible for Fisheries, to such effect that one would believe that our fishing industry was probably ranking among the highest and bringing a great degree of prosperity to the land. I had expected, when the Fisheries Estimate was presented to the House today, that the Minister would have acted in accordance with the expressed opinions of the Parliamentary Secretary and I am very keenly disappointed that this year's Estimate contains no new provisions for the expansion or future development of the industry.
I think the Minister's speech in relation to the fishing industry is shrouded in gloom; it holds out no hope for the future and he seems quite satisfied with the industry as it is and his speech indicates no serious effort to bring about a greater degree of prosperity to the many people engaged in it all around our coast. It now appears that after all the speeches by the Minister, and after the numerous pronouncements by his Parliamentary Secretary, we have reached the stage when the Minister comes in with an annual Estimate which we can only describe as completely bankrupt of any policy which shows confidence or initiative and which indicates no serious drive for the future. It holds out no hope of a greater measure of prosperity for those who depend on the industry for a livelihood.
The Minister has said that landings have increased. The statistics which the Minister gives annually, and indeed those with which he has furnished the House today, do not appear to reflect an increase in the income of fishermen. It is my opinion that there are many who would take an active interest in the revival of the fishing industry but for the fact that the income and the standard of living which the industry offers to them are by no means very satisfactory. I could never understand why, surrounded as we are by probably the richest waters in the world and having the finest fish harbours in the world, the fishing industry cannot be ranked equal to that of the agricultural industry and the tourist industry.
The fishing industry is declining. Let us not try to say otherwise. There is ample evidence, no matter what fishing centre you visit, that those engaged in the industry are very depressed and have little hope for the future. They are even saying that the manner in which the fishermen are treated in this country as compared with the way the French Government and the Spanish Government treat their fishermen leaves a lot to be desired. One can also see the activities in the fishing centres of Great Britain and, indeed, we need not even go as far as Great Britain. Apart from Killybegs, where is there in this country a fishing station with the same activity as can be seen at Kilkeel, County Down?
There is something lacking here and I am quite satisfied that the other Departments of State, such as Agriculture and Industry and Commerce are looked upon as being much more important than the Department of Fisheries. The Department of Fisheries seems to be put at the tail-end of everything, when it should be looked on as one of the most important industries. That is why I feel that it certainly has not been tackled with the energy and seriousness we would be glad to see put into a very thriving fishing industry.
I notice from a circular issued by Bord Iascaigh Mhara some time ago that since 1940 the consumption of fish has been doubled in this country. May I say, if that is so, it is a very welcome development? We are not a fish-eating people and any steps that can be taken, both by radio and television, to encourage the consumption of fish should be taken. I know, as the Minister said in his statement, a good deal of valuable and useful work has been carried out by Radio Éireann and Telefís Éireann in this regard. That good work should continue.
I want to join with the Minister in complimenting all those responsible for the fish cookery competitions which have taken place in recent times. These competitions have aroused a greater degree of interest in the preparation of fish as a very wholesome and appetising meal. I hope the promoters of those competitions will realise that they are performing a very valuable and very useful work. It is a work the continuation of which members of this House should welcome.
Twenty-two new boats were issued during the year. I should like to know from the Minister how many old boats went out of commission during the year or whether the issue of those 22 new boats was in addition to the existing fleet? I am reliably informed that many of those boats replaced boats which have gone out of commission. I welcome the putting on to water of even a boat but I should like to know from the Minister how many of the 22 new boats which he claims were issued during the year replaced boats which have now gone out of commission? The answer to that would really show the correct number of additional boats which have been placed at the disposal of our fishermen.
The Minister, early in his speech, when dealing with Bord Iascaigh Mhara, said the Board have withdrawn from fish trading and can therefore concentrate on marketing development for the benefit of the industry generally. I feel it was a mistake for the Board to withdraw from fish trading. It was undesirable to do so and I am sorry that that decision of the Board was approved by the Government. It was a retrograde step, a step which was not in the interests of the fishermen. It is a step taken in the interests of other interests in the fishing industry. I hate to think what may happen our fishermen if the time should come when the fish traders and the fishmongers of this country put their heads together for the purpose of getting fish at the cheapest possible rate and when there is no alternative market. In these circumstances, the fishermen are left completely and entirely at the mercy of these people.
When the Board were purchasing fish directly from the fishermen and were engaged in fish trading, there was always a guarantee to the fishermen, even if the other private interests engaged in the industry wanted to get fish from them at the lowest possible price. When efforts were made by some of them to sell to the consumer at the highest possible price, the fishermen were always happy in the knowledge that the Board was in the marketing business for the purpose of ensuring that they would not in any way be exploited by those people who are out to get rich quickly at the expense of the unfortunate fisherman and his family who are engaged in the very heavy task of providing the fish.
This is a step which had serious consequences for the fishermen. There is little use in the Minister telling the House that the fishermen welcomed the fact that the Board went out of fish trading. If that be so, it is a very great change of heart in the past few years. I distinctly remember, in every fishing centre which I visited, during the period of office of the inter-Party Government, in the presence of the Minister or officers of his Department, when the fishermen were asked if they wished the Board to continue in fish trading, never once in any single port or harbour did I hear even one fisherman say anything but that the Board should remain in fish trading. They realised, when the Board was engaging in fish trading, there was always a safeguard against their being exploited by what I may describe as selfish interests in the industry.
That is why I think it was very wrong, unwise, unsound and impracticable for the Board to have taken that decision. I cannot see why the Minister should now congratulate himself on the Board having gone out of fish trading. Sooner or later, that will result in placing the fishermen in the hollow of the hands of fish traders, who can, if they so desire, squeeze them out of existence. That is why this Party always welcomed, encouraged and have always been prepared to stand over the Board taking an active interest in fish trading. We felt, in the long run, it was in the interest of the fishermen to guarantee them a price, and to ensure that private vested interest would not squeeze them out of existence. That is why I think it was wrong for the Board to withdraw. I ask, at this late stage, that the Board should reconsider their attitude for the future. I think it would be worthy of careful consideration.
The training schemes for young fishermen, which have been referred to by the Minister, are a very great advantage. I join sincerely in an appeal to those who are anxious to become owners of their own boats, and become well-trained skippers, to avail of these training schemes. Boats are very costly. Naturally enough, it may be unwise, and it is unwise, to put very expensive boats and gear into the hands of people not sufficiently qualified. With modern techniques of fishing, these training schemes are not alone desirable but absolutely necessary. I trust these schemes will be encouraged and continued so that new boats in the future will go into the hands of really fully qualified skippers, and the need for special care and attention which should be given to expensive boats and their valuable equipment will be really appreciated.
Reference has been made to the major fishery stations. I expected the Minister to avail of this opportunity to tell the House and the country what he proposes to do about the many other fishing ports, where there is neither safe anchorage, nor proper landing facilities, and where fishermen have been pleading for improved conditions by way of safe anchorage, shelter and landing facilities.
Good luck to the areas that are being developed as major fishery centres. I should like to know something about the many areas where we have hard-working groups of industrious fishermen and their families and where there are no landing facilities and no special anchorage for their boats and gear during bad weather. Surely it is not too much to expect the Minister to give us an idea on the occasion of the introduction of his Estimate of the harbours and fishing centres that are to be extended, as well as improvements to be carried out and the landing facilities to be provided. Claims have been made all over the country. I feel there may be a tendency in the Minister's Department and in the Office of Public Works to put these claims on the long finger until such time as the major fishery stations have been developed.
Claims have been made by areas such as Ballycotton. They have been appealing for years for the extension of piers and for the provision of proper landing facilities. There are other similar areas on the Cork coast. The Minister must have proposals in his Department from areas on the Kerry coast and up along the western seaboard to Donegal. Proposals have been submitted for improvements to the fishing centres on the coast of Counties Dublin and Wicklow. Facilities were to be granted for the County Wexford area, particularly the Kilmore Quay district. I should like to know what is happening in those cases, or what hope the fishermen in those areas may entertain that landing facilities will be improved. In many cases the proposals have been in the Minister's Department for many years.
Now that there is a concentration on four fishery centres, I hope the Minister will make clear the fact that the development of the four areas selected as major fishery harbours will not be at the expense of these smaller fishing districts. It is only right that the fishermen in these areas should be given an idea as to when it is expected the improvements will be carried out.
There is not a single word in this Estimate about the boat-building industry. During the year, I have been in touch with the Minister's Department, certainly by way of Parliamentary Question, to ascertain what was happening in relation to the boat-building industry. In this industry there is ample scope for development. There is scope for extension and expansion and I should have expected the Minister to refer to the activities in the boatyard at Baltimore in Cork. I expected he would let us have a programme of the work in hands at Killybegs and Meevagh. At one stage representations were made for an expansion of the boatyard at Dingle, and I wonder has that also been put on the long finger or is it proposed to examine again the extension of the boatyard at Dingle.
On an occasion such as this, Deputies should be given more information. The information I should like to get is a comparison of the output of work from those boatyards, particulars of the numbers employed and the number of apprentices following the footsteps of the older people who are likely to retire in the not too distant future, so as to make sure that the boatyards will be staffed with the proper type of boatbuilders.
I am particularly interested in the greater development of the boatyard at Baltimore in County Cork. That boatyard certainly lends itself to extension and expansion in every way. I visited the boatyard in Baltimore last December and I know there is room for further and greater improvement. May I say the boatyard in itself seemed rather drab and I think that work designed to improve its appearance should have been carried out. I would ask the Minister to send some of his officials to Baltimore to see what can be done there.
This is an area from which there has been considerable emigration. It is an area which deserves the special attention of the Minister's Department and of Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I recommend the sending of the Minister's officials to Baltimore during the coming year to explore conditions there, in consultation with the parish priest and local energetic people who are anxious to further and develop the fishing industry there, and see what can be done to improve them. I hope that by this time next year some steps of a practical nature will have been taken in the interests of the fishermen, particularly from the point of view of the development of boatbuilding in the area. The area has a fine tradition of boatbuilding. It is a tradition which should be preserved and encouraged.
I have often wondered why more attention has not been paid to Kinsale and the area around Kinsale. We could all of us, of course, make a claim for every district, but I do not propose to do that. I was disappointed by the brevity of the Minister's speech and the lack of any programme for an expansion of the industries in those areas in which, I think, a fillip is needed to encourage a greater degree of activity.
The extension of the fishery limits is most desirable and the agreed scale of six to 12 miles for those who frequent these waters is also very desirable. I trust the agreement will be implemented and respected all round. It should certainly be of advantage to our fishermen.
With regard to the inland fisheries, no words could express the appreciation and admiration there is for the wonderful work done by the Inland Fisheries Trust.
Hear, hear.
That body has proved one of the most progressive we have. Indeed progress under it has been remarkable. It was, of course, initiated and set up by Deputy Dillon when he was in charge of Fisheries. Results have more than justified the confidence reposed in the Trust. There has been a substantial increase in the number of tourists as a result of its activities. An effort should be made to give maximum publicity abroad to the very valuable fisheries we have. These fisheries have been developed and cultivated by the Inland Fisheries Trust and they now rank as some of the best in the world. Tourists coming here can spend a very enjoyable holiday fishing on our lakes. I hope the good work will continue. I have visited many of these tourist fishing areas quite recently and noted the outstanding work that has been done. It reflects great credit on the Inland Fisheries Trust. It has been the means of bringing industry to many areas. The tributes paid by the tourists are very heartening. I am sorry that large numbers of anglers who could become members of the Trust on payment of a small subscription have so far not availed themselves of the opportunity. Membership would be an expression of appreciation of the valuable work done. I appeal to those who are not yet members to become members as soon as possible.
No reference was made by the Minister to employees of boards of conservators. Protection is insufficient and I was hopeful an effort would be made to enable boards of conservators to employ full-time staffs for the protection of the various waters. These employees should of course have a proper scale of pay. That would encourage them to take a keener interest in the very valuable work they do.
I should like to pay tribute to the valuable work done by the Garda Síochána, and done quite voluntarily, in the protection of our fisheries. It is heartening to note that in recent years we have not had anything like the same degree of illegal fishing that we had in the past. That is probably due to the fact that boards of conservators have taken on additional staff. I am sure the Minister has frequent discussions with the joint council of the boards of conservators. Staff should be brought up to maximum strength. The rates of pay should be good and the working conditions should be made attractive. Protective clothing should be supplied.
The Minister is aware that retired personnel from boards of conservators have genuine grievances. These grievances should be considered sympathetically. The Minister should be generous in allowing the board to be generous, in turn, when dealing with the special claims of retiring water keepers.
The Minister referred to the salmon levy. Again, I think this levy is wrong in principle. It should not be imposed on the export of salmon.
Hear, hear.
Not alone do I regard it as undesirable but I believe it is a hardship on those engaged in salmon fishing. It is taking out of their pockets, without justification, that to which they are justly entitled for themselves. There is no use in the Minister telling us that this levy goes to assist boards of conservators in providing protection services. In the past that money has gone to relieve the Exchequer. Moneys were provided for boards of conservators to improve their services and to assist them financially before there was any salmon levy. This is a racket. It is unjust and wrong in principle. When the present Government reintroduced the salmon levy removed by the inter-Party Government, they did so out of sheer political spite. When we assume office after the next general election, one of our first actions will be to examine this whole question with a view to relieving the salmon fishermen of paying this levy.
You will have to catch the salmon first.
I am very disappointed with this Estimate. It reports no great achievements and contains nothing for the future. It contains nothing to improve the standard of living or the finances of our fishermen. Certainly, it is a far cry from some of the speeches the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary has been making up and down the country. One would imagine from them that the fishing industry was at a peak of prosperity. It is clear from the Minister's statement and from consultation with fishermen all around the coast that that is not so.
The time has come when we should no longer be tinkering with the fishing industry. We should provide amply to improve the standard of living of our fishermen in every way. Our duty should be to increase the number engaged in the industry, to see that they have a market for their catch at a good price and that they have a measure of profit at the end of their week's work.
There was no reference in the Minister's speech to the fishmeal factories. If my memory serves me right, it requires four tons of fish to manufacture one ton of fishmeal. Is it not true that at one stage we were contemplating asking our fishermen to engage in fishing for fishmeal purposes? There is an unlimited market for fishmeal. That is why I cannot understand why the importance of the fishmeal industry was not referred to by the Minister. The Minister's statement was a very half-hearted one and gives little hope for the development and expansion of the industry.
While I am glad to note the improvement in fishing generally over a number of years, I think a great deal more should be achieved by this industry. If we look back a long number of years, we find that under an alien Government much more revenue and a much better living were secured from the harvest of the sea than is at present being secured, even with all our modern improvements in boats, tackle and equipment of all kinds. I recently read a report of the Minister for Local Government back at the turn of the century. I was amazed to find that our export of fish to many European countries was of such high proportions as compared with present day figures. Indeed, I began to wonder whether we were making any progress in sea fishing in general.
I come from a maritime constituency in which, naturally, there are a number of people seeking a living from fishing. They inform me that, while a good return is secured for the fish caught, nevertheless those who have all the risks and danger of fishing in stormy waters, those who have all the trouble and risk, receive a lesser share of the reward for the catches they make. They claim—I believe justifiably —that the middleman secures the main benefit from their hard and dangerous work. They complain that the cost of transport from where the fish is landed to the market in Dublin is prohibitive. It takes from their share to such an extent that it scarcely leaves them a living at all. They also complain that the difficulty of securing transport and the obstacles placed in their way, either by legislation or through technical points being raised, are such that very often they would prefer to distribute the fish locally at a quarter the price rather than undergo all the difficulties they have to meet.
Some two or three years ago, I quoted a case in this House supporting my claim that the man who actually catches the fish gets the least from it. This was a case in my constituency where a certain type of fish was landed during a glut and priced at 10/- a box. The middleman or the buyer instructed the fishermen who were getting 10/- a box to hand up that box onto the quay side, where they sold it to another buyer at £2 a box. In other words, the man who went out at night, risking his life and his gear, secured 10/- a box, while the buyer secured 300 per cent on his purchase without lifting a finger. Surely there must be something wrong with the industry that permits that type of exploitation, because it is nothing less than exploitation when a man who risks his life to secure the prize is deprived of even a moderate share of the market price of that fish? In that case I invited the then Minister, now the Minister for Transport and Power, to have that case investigated. I believe that following my complaints in the House certain readjustments were made at the port of Helvick. But since then, I am informed, things have returned to the old way and the Gaelic fishermen of Ring and Helvick are being exploited as they have been over the past 15 years.
I am glad to note we are pushing forward with the development of Dunmore East harbour. In the matter of fish landings, Dunmore East can compare with any fishery port in the whole of this island. The developments are welcomed by those of us who live in the area and are very necessary also from a national point of view. It is with regret I note that we have not established in that area, where the greatest catches are landed, any fishmeal factory. It is quite common, when there are heavy landings, that the port has to close and to limit catches. Surely it is ridiculous to close Dunmore at certain times during seasons for the want of some method of processing the catch. I am well aware that the Minister is as anxious as I am to see all our surplus fish processed. Some further effort should be made to provide an outlet for surplus catches.
What are the prospects in connection with improvements at Passage East? Some two or three years ago, there were high hopes when it was announced that Passage East had been selected as one of the leading ports for development in Ireland. It turned out that, due to certain difficulties in the sea bed adjoining the port, the improvements were not practicable. The Department have allocated a sum of money for certain development works. How far has that work progressed? When can we expect that it will be pushed to a conclusion? Is the Minister satisfied that all that is necessary is being done for Passage?
At times, during the herring season, when the weather is bad and when easterly winds blow up the river Suir Passage East is often hard pushed to shelter the number of fishing boats that have to leave Dunmore harbour. Passage is a natural sheltering ground. If properly developed, I believe it could rank as a leading fishery harbour in the south of Ireland. I should like the Minister to give me whatever information he has about the development of Passage.
The sea angling club at Dungarvan requested the Fisheries Trust to stock the inland lake at Moonameen, Old Parish, Dungarvan. If the weather should be too rough for sea angling tourists might be attracted from Dungarvan to this inland lake where they could enjoy themselves for portion of their holiday. I understand that the fry have now developed to about 18 inches and that there is quite good fishing and good sport available there. The difficulty is that there appears to be no title to the lake. There is no possible way in which the former owners of the land surrounding the lake can hand over any title deeds to whoever is in control. The local angling club are unable to patrol and protect the stock of fish in the lake.
As recently as last week, I was informed by the secretary of the sea angling club at Dungarvan that there had been complaints about some people wading into the lake and, with nets and other devices, catching stock just coming to maturity and suitable for fishing. Because they have no authority over the lake, they are unable to prevent such abuse by patrolling it in order to protect the fish. I would ask the Minister to get his officials to look into the matter and to devise some way of giving authority to the sea angling club at Dungarvan to protect the stock which was put in the lake by the Fisheries Trust and which is now an attraction to tourists from Great Britain.
The fishery side of our tourist industry is a money-spinner. In the area around Dungarvan, we have built up an enormous tourist potential in sea angling and inland fishing. With more effort, I believe that even the very high numbers coming there could quite easily be doubled or even trebled in the years ahead.
We are glad of the extension of the three-mile limit to six miles—eventually to 12 miles—which has been achieved by agreement. That matter has been a bone of contention, in connection with the herring industry, with fishermen on the south coast of Ireland adjoining Dunmore, Wexford and right up to Cork. Although it looks very good on paper, if somebody does not respect rights what steps will we take to enforce them? Is it intended to provide better protection in respect of the limit? In Dunmore, fishermen say that not only do foreign trawlers come well within the limit but that they drive their boats, which are much bigger than our local boats, right across the nets of the local fishermen, with complete disregard. The local fishermen say that, by some system of signals or communication, the foreign trawlers are always well able to move out beyond the limit if one of our corvettes is in the vicinity. We have three corvettes but I understand that only one can be at sea at any one time. One corvette certainly cannot give any wonderful protection to our fishermen along the whole of our coastline. Has the Minister's Department any plans for improved protection of fishery rights especially in view of the extension to six miles and, after that, to 12 miles. It seems ridiculous to tell people that they cannot come within our area unless we have the means to make sure that their incursions into our territorial waters will be made more expensive for them than the value of fish they will catch there.
The importance of this Estimate to the maritime counties is obvious, and for that reason most of us do not like to let the occasion pass without some reference to it. This year the Minister is to be congratulated on the report he was able to make to the House. I am satisfied that our fishing industry is going ahead in every aspect. It is going ahead in the proper way. Every possible encouragement should be given to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary who have undertaken the technical and scientific development of this important industry.
Many things are recommended from time to time by way of amelioration of the lot of the people who live on the western seaboard, but it is quite difficult to get many of the industries that are available to go to those outlying places. While we should try to decentralise as many of those industries as possible and to direct them towards the western seaboard, we should develop to the maximum those industries which are native to the area.
Hear, hear.
Fishing is one of those, like the tourist industry. The fishing and tourist industries are very much correlated——
Hear, hear.
——in regard to national development as revenue-producing industries, and they are a great source of livelihood to the people living on the western seaboard.
Developing the fishing industry does not mean pandering to the requests of individuals who want little landing places erected on their doorsteps around the coast, and having boat-building stations built in every creek around the coast. To my mind, this should be done on a carefully planned, well-organised, definite, basis, that will be in keeping with what modern society demands in any industry today, that is, better conditions, more security, and general continuity of work.
Hear, hear.
These are important aspects of the industry. Anyone who studies the Minister's report to the House this afternoon must agree that very definite progress is being made under all those headings. I do not think the Minister can be blamed when he is able to show the House that he has placed a first-class type of fishing boat at the disposal of virtually every skipper capable of handling one, irrespective of whether he has the means of purchasing it. That is a magnificent stage to have reached in the development of our fishing industry.
Has that stage been reached?
That is virtually the position at the moment. Any skipper who is capable of handling a boat properly, and has the reputation of being able to do so will get a boat by paying down a very small percentage of the price. He gets a free grant to purchase the boat, and he gets a long term to pay by means of deduction from his catch during the operation of the boat. This is a first-class boat which in some cases costs £27,000 or £30,000. The crew are provided with proper conditions for going to sea, and for staying at sea, if necessary, in which they can work in comfort, go to the fishing grounds, and take full advantage of what may be considered the more comfortable aspects of the fishing industry.
Deputy Kyne referred to the inshore craft which were the sole means of catching fish until not more than two years ago. I know all the disasters that occur. I have seen the petitions which were published time and again to provide some means for dependent relatives who were left behind. I have seen these small craft being able to glut the market in a very short period, and herring spread on the land for manure.
Until we built the fishmeal factory.
Those days are gone, and not too soon. Our people want to fish in security and in comfort. As Deputy Kyne said, the fisherman is one of the hardest working labourers, or craftsmen, you will see in this country. This is an industry in which he has to give of his very best. The Minister is developing a fishing industry which will give him the best facilities in which to do his work on the easiest possible terms, by placing suitable craft at the disposal of every qualified fisherman. However, that is not the whole job. Many other things are required, one of which is the proper training of personnel to man the new boats, if we are to increase the catching power around our coasts.
Is there anyone in this House who will say everything possible is not being done to ensure that young men who are prepared to take up fishing as a livelihood are getting every possible opportunity to train on the scientific and technical side of the industry? They are not asked to pay while serving their apprenticeship. On the contrary, they are paid while they are attending courses, or colleges, or schools, or any training courses which are arranged. I do not think anyone can point the finger at the Minister and say he is not doing an excellent job in placing at the disposal of these young men every facility to ensure that they are trained in the modern techniques of the fishing industry. That, together with the provision of better type boats, is a tremendous step forward in an industry which undoubtedly was neglected.
Upwards of £700,000 is quite a bit of money to spend on the fishing industry. Some Deputies may glibly say it should be twice as much. We must not try to solve the problem with money alone. Our progress must be balanced by increasing the catching power, by being able to dispose of the increased catch, and by having suitable trained personnel to provide the extra catching power. Those three things must be brought together. There is no easy way out. It is very easy when on the Opposition benches to talk about what should be done and what could be done. The Minister and Parliamentary Secretary are making every effort to develop our fisheries in the proper way.
The home market has always been a cause of complaint during debate on this Estimate. It is one of the things on which one can advance a great many theories but it is not so easy to solve in practice. I and other Deputies in previous years have pointed out how sausage manufacturers and such people are able to bring their produce to the shops daily and we have expressed hopes that some means could be achieved by which fish could be distributed with the same frequency. It is not very easy, as any Deputy conversant with sea fishing knows.
However, it is a thing we should have in mind—a continuity of supplies of fish to areas where fish is not always readily available. There must be a cultivation of taste for fish as a food and there must be encouragement to hotels to put fish on their menus each day. It can best be approached through better refrigeration and processing. Fresh fish comes on the market every day and it is all a question of supply and demand. I submit that the question of supply and demand on our market can be levelled off best by more refrigeration space, by more processing and generally by the release of fish in a continuous supply through our distribution system, particularly to inland towns where they have not yet cultivated fish-eating habits.
The new co-operatives have this in mind and the Parliamentary Secretary has urged them to develop in that direction. Another essential side of developing the home market for fish is the new fish cooking courses provided by the technical schools, by the Irish Countrywomen's Association and by other organisations which have been doing much to develop the cooking of fish and to raise the standard of fish cooking generally. All these things are not merely important but indispensable for the development of the home market which, unfortunately, is still a very wide problem.
Many Deputies attribute this problem to the fact that we are a Catholic country with one fast day each week. I suggest we could easily get over that by properly emphasising the importance of fish, even as a course in any meal, and by further developing the cooking and serving of fish in the many varieties now available through modern cooking techniques.
The development in another side of the fishing industry is very heartening. I refer to deep sea angling which is being pursued with greater enthusiasm all around our coasts in competitions and festivals which are being attended internationally. It is a very encouraging sign of what the future holds vis-à-vis our fishing industry and our tourist trade. The Minister in his statement rightly paid tribute, as did the previous speaker, to the promoters of these festivals. I, too, as one who has had much experience of attending them, wish to pay tribute to the many firms who think it worth their while to make these festivals a means of advertising, if you like.
Some people may be unkind enough to emphasise that these firms are really interested in promoting sales of their own products, but every firm is legitimately entitled to advertise and in this way they are helping to promote fishing around our coast. Some of those firms have spent considerable amounts of money and have done a good job for the national economy, for the furtherance of an important industry and, I hope, for their own sales. When a local development committee or a boating club or any other organisation in a seaside town set out to organise a festival, they are faced with a heavy financial burden and without the assistance they get from those firms it might not be possible for them to organise festivals at all.
From the point of view of income, these festival committees are not comparable with the organisers of a race meeting or a sporting fixture because there is no gate and very little money is collected. In fact, there is no money collected from what one might call the audiences. The only revenue is that collected by way of entrance fees from competitors. On the other hand, the amount of revenue to the various traders, to the hotels, publichouses and ordinary shopkeepers, is incalculable in the areas concerned. Furthermore, these festivals provide one of the most interesting and healthiest forms of recreation for those who participate in them. Therefore, the firms who help to organise them, the sponsors and all others associated with them deserve our congratulations, as do Bord Fáilte who have worked so hard to initiate, encourage and assist in the promotion of these festivals.
The question of the repair of fishery harbours has been mentioned, with particular emphasis on smaller harbours. I do not think any seaside centre should be without a suitable landing place, even if many are not now prepared to use small craft for inshore fishing. Unfortunately, very few are prepared to do it today because, just as pedestrians are few on our roads, most of our fishermen are now mechanically-minded and very few fishermen are prepared to pull an oar. The fact that they are using better type boats, with modern mechanical propulsion, highlights the need for better landing places in what were customarily small fishing villages.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to appreciate the growing importance of the ability of these places to take a type of craft different from the type for which they were originally intended. The use of a winch and slipway are most essential in the small fishing village, even though only a few boats remain. I am annoyed sometimes when an inspector from the Fisheries Section or the Office of Public Works reports in connection with a small landing place that he has visited to the effect that only a few boats are available. If suitable landing places were provided there would be many boats. In many cases the provision of a suitable landing place in a small fishing village is a prerequisite to having a decent fishing fleet based there.
The part-time fisherman who is prepared to use the better-type of craft now available to him should be encouraged. There are many places around the Donegal coast where such persons are engaged in fishing, some of them during the salmon season and others when they know that there are shoals in the inshore waters. These men also cultivate their own farms. While the number of permanently employed fishermen who use the better and larger boats is increasing, we should ensure that as long as fishermen who use small craft are prepared to go to sea, even occasionally, the necessary facilities would be provided for them. While the amount of fish they catch may not be a high proportion of the total landings in any year, their own financial position may be considerably enhanced by the fact that they supplement their income from farm work by an occasional day's fishing. That applies in particular to the men who engage in inshore salmon fishing around most of the coast and, in particular, in estuaries.
The £3½ million derived from fishing, including inland fisheries and deep sea fisheries, is a significant figure and the fact that this industry is increasing year by year both in value and in quantity is the most encouraging aspect of the matter. As I said at the outset, the progress is steady, definite and permanent, not haphazard, depending on the availability of fish in one year as against another. There will always be a certain degree of fluctuation in the landings at various ports in different years but with the catching power now available that fluctuation is not so noticeable and catches are good.
Deputy Kyne has left the House. Deputy Lynch is not here. I always like to join issue with Deputy Lynch with regard to the position of Dunmore East vis-à-vis the position of Killybegs. Killybegs has always held pride of place. The fishermen of Dunmore East would need to pull up their socks if they are to catch up on the fishermen of Killybegs in the matter of fish landings. In fact, Killybegs boats have been responsible for a good deal of the progress at Dunmore East. If it were not for the pelagic fish, herring, caught by Dunmore East fishermen the figures would compare rather unfavourably with Killybegs. The latest figure available to me for the value of fish landings reveals a balance in favour of Killybegs of well over £12,000 for the year. Deputy Kyne, who suggested that Dunmore East held pride of place in Ireland, should consider that figure. If herring fishing is excluded from the figure for landings at Dunmore East, which was considerably inflated as a result of the assistance of Donegal boats, the figure for landings would be very poor. I hope the figure will be doubled and that the Killybegs figure will be trebled. There are trends in that direction.
We have a nice fleet of good boats. The number is gradually expanding. They are manned by some of the best fishermen in Europe. That is no exaggeration. We are not trying to under-estimate the difficulties which these fishermen have to experience time and again but the days of dumping fish in Donegal are gone. When Deputy Kyne was talking about insufficient supplies of fish being sent to the factory for processing into fishmeal he probably was not aware that a fishmeal factory is a standby provided to ensure that dumping will not take place. It is only when the price of fish reaches an uneconomic figure that the fishmeal factory can hope to get it, or when fishermen catch a large quantity of fish that is not generally popular with the consuming public. There are certain types of fish which are suitable mainly for conversion into fishmeal. Of course, offal is at all times acceptable at the fishmeal factory. By and large, the fishmeal factory is an assurance that the fisherman will never have to dump his catch and that when all else fails he will get a reasonably good price from the fishmeal factory for his entire catch.
I am glad to note that as a result of the availability of offal, fish unsuitable for other marketing, and the occasional glut, the fishmeal factory at Killybegs has been doing quite well over the past few years. It had a pretty shaky start.
But it was a good plan, was it not?
A very good plan —a good Fianna Fáil plan.
Oh!
There is one feature of that factory which will amuse even the Deputy. When the factory was started, it was regarded as being of great importance to the district and Deputies from the opposite side of the House used to say: "We started that. That was our factory." Then the factory took a bad list and became rather doubtful for a time. Things went badly, and Deputies opposite said: "That is a Fianna Fáil factory and it is going down the spout and the Fianna Fáil people threw money into that factory."
Right always.
Now it is going all right.
It was always right.
When it got back on its feet, it was again a Fine Gael factory. I have said that so many times that I do not want to repeat it now. There is a certain amount of good humour in the situation. Claims were made for the factory at a time when it suited certain people to make them. Responsibility for the factory was disclaimed when it did not seem to be going so well. I do not mind who claims credit for it, the important thing is that the factory is going well.
The present Minister arranged a letting when it went into liquidation shortly after it was first established and it has been operated successfully by the man in charge of it. I am very glad it has been successful. I remember at the time how worried those of us from that constituency were. All of us were worried because every Deputy likes to see his constituency going well and not losing anything it already has. There was a decided chance that the factory would be purchased for something other than a fishmeal factory and I was delighted at the time when the decision was made that the Minister would take it over and let it only for the purpose for which it was originally built. That is something nobody can dispute and something of which we all have a right to be proud.
I do not know if there is any other aspect of the Vote to which I wish to refer. Very often when one sits down after speaking on an Estimate, one remembers something about which one was particularly concerned. I should like to say, in passing, with reference to inland fisheries, that development in that direction has been very good and I am sure it is not necessary to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of this. The figures show a 40 per cent increase and there is still tremendous ground to be covered. Nothing succeeds like success and many of the lakes and inland fisheries generally, which not many years ago were regarded as being of no interest, are now regarded differently and people living adjacent to them are now alive to their potential as a tourist attraction.
Everything possible should be done to develop them. To use a modern expression, I should like to see the Parliamentary Secretary being "with them" as far as possible in giving what assistance he can. All of these things are limited by the amount of money available for development. One could do a great many things if one had the required money. The Parliamentary Secretary should not hesitate to look for the necessary money to develop fishing, whether it is in regard to harbours, boats, or the training of personnel. I am sure the Opposition, and this side of the House in particular, will never hesitate to give him whatever money is necessary. However, as we have said many times, if we want to do things, we have to pay for them and if we have to pay for them, we have to raise the money. Everybody in the House has learned that lesson and the Parliamentary Secretary can be assured of the full co-operation of the House in anything he may do by way of providing extra capital for the further development of the fishing industry which he has put well on its feet.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we ought provide money for the development of the fishery industry. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that if we want to spend the money, we have to raise it. I do not agree with the present way in which the Minister sees fit to raise it. There is one product exported from this country on which we levy a fine for exporting it, that is, fish. Why we should raise the funds for the Salmon Conservancy Fund by a levy when we are handing out grants of up to £250,000 to other people who will undertake to export is a mystery and must always remain a mystery to me. I did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that he approved of a levy on the exports of salmon. I am glad that there is some remnant of conscience left in him. I want to say that I most emphatically dissent from the principle of levying exports of fish in order to provide revenue for the Salmon Conservancy Fund. Some day this will be dropped. A relatively insignificant sum is raised by it but the principle is bad and should be abandoned. It would have been abandoned long ago but for the fact that it became a matter of political face for the Fianna Fáil Party to maintain it.
I am utterly bewildered by one aspect of this Estimate. Can anyone tell me why it is thought desirable to centralise the marketing of pigs and bacon in a board, to centralise the marketing of milk and milk products in a marketing board, to centralise all the marketing of grain on the home and foreign markets in a marketing board and why, when we had a most efficient marketing board for fish, we forbade it to continue its activities and handed the marketing of fish over to the wholesale fishmongers? Having done that, there is now some kind of suggestion that there should be individual co-operatives to undertake the marketing of fish.
Look at the record of the marketing organisation we had. In 1948, the Irish Sea Fisheries Association marketed about 65,000 cwt. of fish. In 1957/58, the last year for which Deputy Flanagan and I were responsible, the same Board marketed 218,000 cwt. of fish. Then for some utterly mysterious reason the whole machinery for marketing fish was scrapped and we were informed the business would be undertaken by the wholesale fishmongers. I have never discovered the reason for that. I think it is daft and not only daft but evil. I invite the House to compare the attitude and the policy adopted by this Government in respect of fish with the policy adopted in respect of the marketing of pigs, bacon, milk, milk products and grain. If one procedure is good for all these important products which are stable to the agricultural industry—and I believe a central marketing organisation is not only good but indispensable—surely the same procedure must be good for fish?
I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach talking about maintaining regular supplies. I remember that Bord Iascaigh Mhara set on foot a system of regular deliveries of fish in white vans throughout rural Ireland. That disappeared when the whole industry was handed over to the fishmongers who did not give a fiddle-de-dee whether the fish was marketed or not, and still do not. I will listen with interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands if he can explain why his Government think it desirable to centralise the marketing of grain, milk, milk products, pigs and bacon but not the marketing of fish. I look forward to the time when the present unsatisfactory fish marketing machinery can be rectified, and to rectify it, it should be centralised and not operated for the benefit of the fishmongers but for the benefit of the fishermen who land the fish, and the consumers.
Mark you, since the central marketing system was set up, fish has always been a little dearer in Ireland than it was in the fishing ports of Great Britain. Bearing in mind the fact that our method of catching and marketing fish here provided our people with fresh fish as compared with the fish which was anything from a fortnight to a month old and which came on the market in Great Britain from the deep sea trawling fleets of Great Britain, I have not the slightest doubt that the people here got excellent value for the money they paid for fish. They got in quality what they paid in price. If we had continued our marketing arrangements on that basis I believe it would have been greatly to the advantage of the industry as a whole and in particular to the fishermen and, in the long run, also, to the consumer of fish in this country. It would have made it possible to continue the uphill fight to change the eating habits of our people from being a non-fish-eating people into being a fish-eating people.
Anyone with any knowledge of the problem of marketing agricultural or fishery products knows that to change the eating habits of a people is one of the most difficult things on earth. If we could persuade people in continental countries to eat mutton we would be sitting on a goldmine. On the continent of Europe, they will eat veal and lamb but they have never eaten mutton. It is the same in Ireland as regards fish. They have never eaten fish and to persuade them is an uphill battle requiring substantial investment and, above all, it must be undertaken as an act of faith over a protracted period. I cannot see any commercial interest taking the risks, taking the losses and maintaining constant supply in the period that must elapse before there is a constant and regular demand for fish in this country such as obtains in Great Britain and elsewhere.
It is foolish for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach to be talking about the wonderful change in the situation in regard to herring when those of us who know anything about this industry understand that the events that have taken place are events over which nobody on God's earth has the slightest control. By the mercy of God's providence the herring shoals in the North Sea have vanished and the herring shoals off our coasts which have been taken up in remarkable abundance have become immensely valuable. We all know that tomorrow morning the situation might reverse itself and that no living creature can tell how or why it happened.
It is something about which we can rejoice. It has, of course, affected the viability of the fishmeal factories. The fishmeal factories were established at a time when there was a European superabundance of herring and the danger was that, when our men landed herring or, indeed, other varieties of fish, there would be a surplus for which there was no sale at all. The fishmeal factories did no more than ensure a price below which the fish could not fall but they did guarantee that the men who laboured, when they arrived back with their catches, would not have to throw them back into the sea because of an unsaleable surplus. While the market for herring continues as it is at present, happily, our fishermen very rerely have to have recourse to the fishmeal factory. In fact, to get supplies to keep the fishmeal factory going is a problem. Nevertheless, whoever started the fishmeal factory, it was right to start it. It is right to maintain it and it should be an indispensable part of the fishery industry.
I should like to hear if the Parliamentary Secretary has any technical advice on what to me is a very alarming problem, that is, the modern methods used now by the Russian trawlers in fishing for herring. Heretofore fishing for herring was a matter of locating shoals and catching them. The Russians have now introduced a system of deep sea fishing that radios the location of the shoals at far greater depths than have ever been located before. They lower into the ocean to the level at which the shoals are moving in deep water things like vacuum cleaners which suck up the fish into the holds of specially constructed trawlers, thus absorbing the whole shoal. This is a procedure heretofore unknown to the fishing industry.
I do not myself know what the full implications of this procedure are but they are certain to have two implications, one is the tendency to create gluts in European markets for cured fish and the other, to imperil the survival of herring in the places to which we have ready access. We do not know what is the effect on the herring shoals but what causes me concern is the thought of the entire fish population or a shoal of herring being swept into a trawler without discrimination or without the escape of any fish which normally is to be expected when the traditional methods of catching with nets is employed.
I fully appreciate that in our present state of knowledge it may be hard to weigh up what the ultimate effects of this type of fishing might be on the herring population in the seas adjacent to our shores where, presumably, the shoals that come to our shores originate. However, it is a matter that ought to be examined with a view to determining what the probable long term effects of such methods of fishing may be on the herring population of the North Sea and the Atlantic.
I want to relate an extraordinary thing. There have recently been steps taken in this country to establish on a somewhat larger scale than at present the mink industry. One of the essential elements in the mink industry is that there should be available for mink an adequate supply of protein foodstuffs. I should have thought, if a man was coming here to establish a mink farm, that the Fisheries Branch would open its arms and welcome the person concerned and assure him he would be provided with all the fish offal and the fish food the mink farm could conceivably consume. Apparently it has been extremely difficult to persuade the Fisheries Branch that it is prudent to establish a mink industry in this country because they have taken the view that there might not be a sufficiency of fish food available to supply the mink with the protein food they require. When that was said to me I said I did not believe it and added: "Maybe by going up to a higher level in the Fisheries Branch you will come across someone there who will throw open the doors and declare you are heartily welcome and make themselves responsible for seeing that the supplies of protein foodstuffs are available from the fisheries if they are available nowhere else."
When I was giving that assurance, I was in the embarrassing position that I knew I was sticking my neck out because when I was there and when Deputy Flanagan was there we had Bord Iascaigh Mhara as the marketing organisation. If Deputy Flanagan or I had been faced with that problem, we would have said to the manager of Bord Iascaigh Mhara: "Here is a large new potential outlet for fish and fish offal and it is up to you to enable us to assure this man he will be supplied with his requirements." Deputy Flanagan will remember the time when a firm in Waterford wanted to can fish and told us: "We would be glad to establish a fish cannery in this country but we cannot depend on the supply of fish."
I remember our calling in Bord Iascaigh Mhara, confronting them with this man and saying: "If this man establishes a cannery, can you say he will get all the supplies he requires to can?" They said: "Yes, we are prepared to say that you can commit us to that and we shall undertake to deliver the fish." If you remember we did say to the fish canners: "Come hell or high water, on every Monday morning so many cran of herring will be delivered to your cannery. After that it is your funeral." At that time, we were at least in a position to go to our marketing organisation and say: "Can you honour this undertaking?" And they said, "Yes". We were able to say to potential processors of fish that if it was supplies they were worried about we could give an unqualified undertaking that the quantity specified would be delivered.
Now the position is you cannot give that undertaking and all you can do is tell them to go to the Department and that you are perfectly certain they will be able to mobilise supplies from somewhere. You know when you are saying it that the Department have ceased to have a marketing organisation but I have such confidence, from past experience of the officers of the Department, that I can say that——
These projects have got every encouragement from us.
That is what I would expect but there is the weakness in that the Minister is no longer in control of a marketing organisation which would enable him to say categorically to a potential processor: "I have consulted my marketing organisation and you can be assured of so much fish." Today the Minister is obliged to say he will do his best to get wholesale fishmongers to keep up the fish supply. If they should let him down he has no body to do for the fishing industry what the Grain Board do for the grain Board do for the pork and bacon buyers or what the Pigs and Bacon buyers, or what An Bord Bainne do for those who want to buy chocolate crumb or dried milk or anything else in that line. We are in the ridiculous position that if approached to inquire if there is a certain supply of butter, or dried milk or products or pork and bacon or grain or barley, or coarse grain or milling grain, we are able to say: "Give me ten minutes and I shall ring up and find out," but in regard to fish, all we can say is: "I shall ask the Department and they may be able to say what the position is." That is daft. That is one of the things done by the present Minister for Transport and Power and it was a daft thing. Sooner or later the present Minister or Parliamentary Secretary ought to undo it and do for the fishing industry what every other industry has done for itself and that is to centralise marketing in an effective and efficient way for the purpose of protecting the producers and seeing the customers get a fair deal.
The Minister in his introductory remarks spoke about the expansion in the case of the Dublin Bay prawn fishing and their export. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary about it. The Minister said the higher landings of Dublin Bay prawns have also led to an appreciable increase in their export. I welcome that news, but can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what are the prospects of the Dublin Bay prawn fishing grounds bearing up to this increase in fishing? Are any steps being taken to preserve their reproductive capacity? It would be a great misfortune if the prawn fishing grounds were exhausted by a demand being put upon them in excess of their ability to reproduce.
I do not suggest for a moment that the minute we get a new market we should immediately take fright and run away from it for fear it would absorb more than we are in a position to supply but anyone familiar with fishery problems is only too well aware of the disaster that can ensure from over-fishing unless, in plenty of time, compensatory measures are taken to ensure that if there is intensive fishing in one part of the fishery there will be a corresponding multiplication of that type of fish in some other part of the fishery. The increase in the export of Dublin Bay prawns is striking but not surprising in view of the demand which exists for these fish both in Britain and France. It would be a thousand pities if the particular prawn for which Dublin Bay has built up such a reputation were to disappear as our oyster beds have disappeared.
That brings me to the question of oysters. We were extraordinarily lucky that the great frost of two or three years ago left our oyster beds virtually untouched with the result that oysters are now commanding a higher price than ever before. But all we have virtually are the Galway oyster beds. We tried to establish a new oyster bed at Clew Bay——
It has not been too successful.
It is not an easy thing to do. I cannot now, and could not when I was Minister, believe that the technicians of our Department cannot establish an oyster bed. I do not under-estimate the difficulties. I know the technical problems are considerable but it seems utterly incredible that with the amount of scientific know-how that I believe exists in the Department, we cannot establish an oyster bed. I should not be a bit surprised to learn that you would have to face the fact that out of every ten beds you attempted to start only three, perhaps, might take and be successful. I should be quite prepared to accept that but it is an astonishing proposition to say that we are not able to do it. If there is any certain money spinner over the next 50 years it must be oyster beds. A demand exists now, particularly in Britain, which there is no prospect of supplying. In some fashionable London restaurants at present oysters are being served at, I think, 20/- a dozen. In Dublin, it will cost you 10/- a dozen to eat oysters. I remember a time when in any Dublin restaurant you could get oysters for about 3/6 a dozen. Our fathers could remember a time when you could buy oysters for 1/- a dozen. The demand and the prospective demand outstrip any prospect of supply.
Unfortunately. as we all know, you do not establish an oyster bed overnight. It takes years and I should be interested to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary if the Clew Bay attempt has been followed up or has any attempt been made to establish oyster beds anywhere else in the country because there were a great many of them up to the beginning of the last century when a disease swept the oyster beds destroying a great many of them both here and in Britain. Luckily, some of them survived but I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he wants to do something worthwhile and of enduring importance there is something to hand which I cannot believe the technical resources of our Department are not adequate to grapple with if they are given the charge of doing so.
Another matter which I think is of urgent importance is the supply of lobster and langouste. Here again is another controversial question and experts differ in their opinion as to what constitutes fishing of lobster or crab. Some people will tell you that the catching and sale of berry lobsters should be prohibited. Others will tell you that the catching and sale of berry lobsters does not affect the lobster population in the long run. Is it not true to say surely that there is evidence that in certain areas the lobster population is beginning to dwindle?
It will increase in time.
People can tell the Parliamentary Secretary that the lobster population is being undermined. It is a wise provision to increase the minimum size of lobsters but I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that there are areas in which there is evidence that the lobster population is declining. This is a very alarming trend because, unfortunately, it is only too easy to send a shellfish population on the downgrade but it is often extremely difficult, once that downgrade trend has begun to establish itself, to get it travelling in the other direction. I should be glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether this problem is occupying his mind and what steps he proposes to take regarding it.
I am puzzled by something which Deputy Flanagan referred to, that is, the failure to expand the boatbuilding industry on the west coast of the country. If you go to a place like Downings, Killybegs or Baltimore, you would imagine that the ideal industry to promote there is boatbuilding. You have a skilled tradition there and you have no scruple about taking young fellows and teaching them boatbuilding. If there is an expanding boat-building industry in their own area and every possibility of enduring employment for them and if they elect to leave the country they are not going out as unskilled men. It has always been a tradition that out of the boatyards of this country there has been a trickle of young men who want to see the world. They have always taken up employment as highly skilled men in the boatyards of England and America. For that reason, nobody had any scruples that they were putting them into a dead-end industry. They were going into an industry which they were born and reared in.
As far as I know, the boatyards of this country never seem to expand at all. There is a kind of threat hanging over the heads of some of them that they are going to close down. About 12 months ago the Minister had it in his mind to close down the Meevagh and Fanad Bay boatyards in County Donegal. I do not know if the Meevagh boatyard has been closed down.
It is still there.
Is it working?
It is still operating.
I do not know if it is more difficult to settle a labour dispute at Meevagh. If there is a labour dispute in the Liffey Dockyard or at the Verolme shipyard it can be settled but I cannot see it is any more difficult to settle a trade dispute at Meevagh or any other such place. I am primarily concerned that the small boat industry should expand in those areas because it seems to me to provide a type of employment which is traditional in those small ports.
I remember when Deputy Flanagan and I were there, it was proposed to double the shipbuilding in Dingle boatyard. I do not know whether in fact it has been expanded, because of lack of finance or otherwise. It would certainly have had social consequences for the Dingle area. When we pay out £350,000 for a ship to Verolme Dockyard surely we could find a couple of hundred in order to double the capacity of Dingle boatyard. We were told it was strictly for economic reasons but I think it is much more important to expand the boatyard in Dingle than it is to pay £350,000 to build a ship in order to sell it to somebody in Amsterdam.
I should like to see employment in Cork, Dublin or anywhere else but I am particularly anxious to see it provided in areas like Baltimore, Dingle, Meevagh or Killybegs where there is an excellent tradition of skilled craftsmanship. This could easily be provided if orders were provided by the Government for the expansion of our own fishing fleet. The British Government give orders to the dockyards in Tyneside and the Clyde to provide employment for the workers there. Here in Meevagh, where it is much more important to keep this craft in operation and skilled men are available, there is a fight before you get the Government to give any sort of encouragement to it. The funny part about it is if somebody from Czechoslovakia came along with a proposal to manufacture pot handles in Dingle there would be a procession of fellows down there from the Industrial Development Authority and Córas Tráchtála. There would be a great flourish of trumpets with statements made at dinners that the pot handle industry was one of the greatest industries and would do great good for Dingle. But, if Michael McLoughlin said he could build two ships for every one he built before everybody would say he should go away, that it was not convenient and the best opinion was against him.
I am always at a loss to understand that attitude but that has always been the characteristic of the whole approach to these areas ever since I had anything to do with them. I am happy to remember that Deputy Flanagan and I went down there and charged through that kind of opposition. Sometimes we were criticised for it but we kept battering away. I remember Baltimore. At one stage I was solemnly informed that we ought to close down the boatyard at Baltimore on the ground that nobody wanted the boats, or that they got better built boats in Killybegs, or some other cod. I went down to Baltimore myself and said: "You will not close the boatyard". It belonged to somebody else. We bought it. There was some confusion about it. There was an industrial school there and it was linked up with it. I said: "We will buy the blasted thing but we will not close it." We got it open and it is still open and functioning. An effort was made to close it on the ground that it was uneconomic.
I remember going to Meevagh. The yards were closed there and we opened them again. At Baltimore they were about to be closed. But far from closing these places I think we ought to expand them. I should be glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, who referred in the opening part of his speech to the increasing number of boats being provided, which I believe is an illusory concept, if there is a large number of boats being provided where are they being built? Are they built in Irish yards?
Yes; all the new boats referred to are built in Irish yards. Secondhand boats are being purchased as well.
Are all our boatyards here working to capacity?
Yes, Killybegs, Dingle and Baltimore are. Meevagh is working on a different basis. I shall explain the matter in my reply.
All I want to know is that the boatyards in Dingle, Baltimore, Killybegs and Meevagh are kept going and that we will not let them collapse while we buy boats elsewhere. If all these yards at Dingle, Baltimore, Killybegs are working to capacity, I think it is perfectly proper to buy further boats if they are needed.
Yes, if the fishermen want them. It is their choice surely.
Come off it now. If we give a fisherman a large grant, surely we have a right to say he will sail a boat manufactured in an Irish shipyard.
We have no grants for secondhand boats.
So long as I am satisfied that Bord Iascaigh Mhara are buying all the boats they are using in the yards to which I referred particularly, all the other boats can be got as best they can, but we will not let our own boatyards collapse. A first charge on our purchases of boats should be the potential output of our own boatyards.
I never sing the praises of the Inland Fisheries Trust because I know the splendid work it has done. I acknowledge I was lucky in the record of that institution. When we started off, we had only got personnel for it corresponding to the ordinary high standards of the public service of this country, but we had the extraordinary blessing that we came upon dedicated men and that makes a great difference. We happened to secure for the services of the Inland Fisheries Trust a group of men who were really deeply interested in fishery and all that went with it. We were getting not only the services of competent public servants but the services of men who from the date of its inception to this day have done the job well and not for monetary reward. In that we were lucky.
One thing has caused me continuous irritation, that is, that after the initial work of saving the lakes, notably Lough Sheelin, there followed a period, after the elimination of the coarse fish operation, in which the fishing calibre of the lake did not appear to improve, whereupon letters were written to the papers, speeches were made and indignation meetings held on all the four shores of Lough Sheelin. Lamentations were poured out about the ignorant and shortsighted interference of the Inland Fishery Trust, that it created such a situation that all the trout on Lough Sheelin had gone down to the depths and would never come up again. All that got headlines, newspaper publicity and they got TDs to join in the general lamentation. After a few years the fruit of the Inland Fishery Trust began to manifest itself. I think Lough Sheelin is now one of the finest mayfly lakes in Europe. Were there meetings called to congratulate the Inland Fisheries Trust? No; not a word was said, not a syllable. Were there letters of apology to say we were ignorant, we were stupid, we were mischievous? Not at all, not a whimper. Pictures were sent home to mothers, uncles and aunts but nothing to the papers. Then, two articles appeared in the Irish Times setting out the truth in regard to that particular lake.
If you hire a man, whether he is a civil servant or the man to milk the cows, if he is not doing his work, he should be told. It should be made clear to him that he is not doing his work and that he should look for employment elsewhere. If he is doing his work, and more than he is paid to do, when the fruits of his labour are evident, he should get the credit that is due to him. That is something the Inland Fisheries Trust has not got so far. I should be obliged if some of the public representatives, not to speak of the numbers of anglers up and down the country who have been so eloquent in the past, would now be eloquent to testify that the fruits of the labours of the Inland Fisheries Trust are beginning to show.
I want to compliment the Inland Fisheries Trust on the result of their labours in my constituency. When I first represented County Monaghan, it was one of the counties where tourism did not exist. It was the Inland Fisheries Trust, the trout lakes and other fishery lakes which have brought into that county a steady inflow of revenue as a result of the kind of tourism which did not exist in this country before. Despite the fact that the Minister for Transport and Power tore up every line, the people are still going in by road, thanks to the Inland Fisheries Trust. This is a matter in which I am deeply interested.
I should like to conclude by urging on the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, in whose Department he is, to look again at this whole question of the marketing of fish and to ask himself the question I asked at the beginning: if it is desirable to market grain through a board, pigs and bacon through a board, milk through a board, how is it desirable to tear up the marketing machinery you had for fish?
Lastly, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me when was the account required under section 49 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, in which he knows, perhaps, I had a hand——
It is in the Appropriation Account.
Yes, but there is a statutory obligation on the Minister, so far as I know, under subsection (10):
An account of the Fund shall be prepared for each financial year in a form approved by the Minister for Finance and the account shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and, together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
It is in the Appropriation Account. That is where it appears. The Public Accounts Committee is sitting on it at the moment.
That does not seem to me to correspond with the statutory obligation imposed by subsection (10) of section 49 which appears to me to say:
An account of the Fund shall be prepared for each financial year in a form approved by the Minister for Finance and the account shall be audited by the Comptroller and
Auditor General and, together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
The Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind that that provision enables anyone who wants to raise a debate in the House on that specific account to so raise the matter.
It is actually a separate account set out in the Appropriation Account.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will look into it. It appears to me there is an obligation on him to put the account in the Library, to lay it on the Tables of both Houses of the Oireachtas, which is the act giving to a Deputy the right to raise the matter here by specific debate.
I could not support an Estimate which enshrines the detestable principle of levying on exports of fish. The sum is not substantial considering the present price of salmon, but it is a detestable principle, and thoroughly wrong. I could not support an Estimate which has destroyed the central marketing organisation for fish, and that at a time when it is universally admitted that central marketing organisations are urgently necessary for the marketing of all products. I could not support an Estimate in which I failed to get the reassurance I think we ought to have that the small boatyards of the country are being adequately employed. For that reason, I support the motion to refer the Vote back.
I think we should have had a much more comprehensive statement from the Parliamentary Secretary on this Estimate. His introductory statement was sadly lacking in detail. One would have thought we should have got information as to the number engaged in the fishing industry, the number of boats operating, and more detailed information on fish production generally. I notice there is no reference whatsoever to fish imports and that is something that should have been embodied in his opening statement.
Both the Minister and his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, and also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach are very complacent about the fishing industry. They are very pleased with the progress made. They feel there is nothing to worry about so far as fishing is concerned. After years of spending money on this industry, we find that the value of landings of sea fish was £1,414,000 in the year 1963. I consider that £1,414,000 of fish from the sea is very small, having regard to the fact that we have a coastline of something more than 2,000 miles. One would expect, with all the money that has been put into the industry over the years, that the landings would have been much more valuable than £1,414,000, or, if you like, twice the amount of the Estimate the Minister asks us to approve. Surely there is no room for complacency where these figures are concerned.
Having regard to the depreciation in the value of money, these figures do not compare favourably with the figures in years gone by. They compare very unfavourably with the figures in the early part of this century, when the catches were much heavier, despite all the difficulties then confronting fishermen, with obsolete gear, and so on. Despite the new advances we seem to be making very little headway. It is difficult to controvert the figures given on page 1 that exports, visible and invisible, arising from our fisheries were worth about £3½ millions in 1963. There is no evidence given here and no detail to support that figure. There ought to be some obligation on the Parliamentary Secretary to give more detailed information as to how he arrived at this figure of £3½ millions.
I should like to know how much fish we import. Mention has been made of the fish we export. Side by side with that we should have a statement with regard to the fish we import. I believe the necessity to import fish would not arise to the extent to which it does arise at the moment if we had available a proper marketing system. We have references again and again to the difficulties in the marketing system and the difficulties inland towns have in securing supplies of fresh fish. Almost all the fish taken from the sea in west Cork is sent to the Dublin market and some of it finds its way back to Cork again. Everyone knows there is wanton waste from the point of view of transport expenses. We asked the people in charge of fisheries on a number of occasions to examine the position, particularly with regard to this unnecessary transport of fish, but we appear to have made very little headway.
I am not reflecting on the Parliamentary Secretary when I say that the person in charge of fisheries should be from a coastal area. Unfortunately, for a number of years, it has been somebody from the centre of Ireland. The Parties constituting the Governments over that period should have been able to find somebody with a practical knowledge of the industry. I believe there are Deputies on both sides of the House with such qualifications. With their local knowledge and practical experience of the fishing industry and its problems, they could render much better service than men handicapped by the lack of practical knowledge. I am not in any way reflecting on the men who have been in charge of fisheries over the years. However, I feel it was unfair of the Parties responsible that they did not appoint these men to some other post for which they would be suitable.
We are told that efforts to promote greater home consumption of fish have been intensified. I was down town this evening and examined the prices in one of the bigger fish shops. To put it mildly, I thought the prices were exorbitant. Plaice of only very fair quality was 4/6 per lb. The cheapest fish, haddock, was 3/- per lb. Five or six varieties of fish were all marked at very high prices. I can understand the difficulty of the Dublin housewife buying fish at these prices. So far as the ordinary housewife with a limited income is concerned, fish at such prices is beyond her reach.
I know the position from the other end as well. I hear the fishermen at Schull and Castletownbere complain at times about the price they get for fish, particularly when the supply exceeds the demand. This refers especially to whiting, which I think is a very good quality fish but does not seem to be too popular. When that fish is sent up to Dublin, it does not pay the cost of transport. I understand that the transport cost of sending a box of fish from Schull to Dublin is 6/-. I assure that boxes of whiting have been sold on the Dublin market for 6/- or even less.
Deputy Kyne referred to the middleman. I may not agree entirely with his view. However, he was not for or against, but merely said the middleman has an excessive profit. I think he was right, but I would like to qualify that by saying that I feel that, whatever else the middleman does, he performs a very useful service. We must have middlemen. In fact, Deputies might be described as middlemen between the Government and the people. I would like to see such people adequately paid for their service, but they should not be overpaid. In the fishing industry, some are overpaid for the service they render. If poor quality plaice is selling in the Dublin shops at 63/- per stone, I am sure that fish was bought at an insignificant percentage of that figure. I appreciate there must be some waste.
The Parliamentary Secretary has a very big task getting the people of this city, the largest centre of population in the country, to develop a fish-eating habit in view of the prices charged. It is part of his job to ensure that fish is sold at reasonable prices, giving everybody concerned a fair profit. In view of these high prices, I can visualise the consumption of fish declining. Deputies interested in the development of the fishing industry are also interested in trying to get the people to eat more fish. If ready markets at remunerative prices were available, our fishermen could catch much more fish than are being caught. I hear from the local fishermen that, when you send a lorry of fish to Dublin at a time when the supply exceeds demand, prices are very much reduced. In fact, the most profitable time to sell fish is when it is exceptionally scarce. Even though the quantity may be very small, the profit from it is much greater. Some cold storage system should be devised when there is a glut of fish. Surely it should be possible to hold it over, as I understand a big number of salmon were held over last year and sold at a time when fresh fish was not readily available ?
The figures for sea fish landings are very disappointing. The figure of less than £1½ million is very disappointing. I was amazed to read it in the paper. At first, I thought it was a misprint, because the figure was so small.
The Parliamentary Secretary should try to develop a marketing system at home in Ireland, apart from export markets, so that fish may be distributed regularly and in good condition in the major inland towns. If that were done, the consumption of fish in the country could be increased, always provided it was on sale at reasonable prices.
There is a short paragraph on harbour development. I am amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary is not in a position to commence work at Castletownbere. It is a number of years since first we were told that work was about to commence at Castletownbere. The terms used were somewhat similar to those expressed here "is about to begin at Castletownbere." What does "is about to begin" mean? When mention was made of it previously, I thought work was about to begin.
It is now a matter of weeks.
The Parliamentary Secretary must give a more definite date.
Within one month.
That is very pleasing news. The Parliamentary Secretary has now made a definite statement. If it does not start then, we shall not see him for a long time, so he has the advantage there. It is important not only to the fishermen and the industrial life of Castletownbere but it will provide a good deal of much-needed employment.
There is a freezing plant at Schull. In response to numerous questions, I have been told that it is about to be utilised. These promises have not materialised. What definite information has the Parliamentary Secretary about the utilisation of the freezing plant at Schull? Previous statements about this plant have proved to be incorrect. I do not hold—as others do —that because it was initiated by the inter-Party Government, the present Government do not like it and have made no effort whatsoever to utilise it. The plant was erected at great cost to public funds. There is an obligation on the Department to utilise it rather than to allow it to go derelict.
I am in full agreement with the scheme to train fishermen. It is a pleasing paragraph in the Minister's statement. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach says that, once they are trained, boats will be available for each one of them. I am sure that statement is incorrect.
Every trained skipper fisherman.
We have a number of such trained men fishing along the west coast of Cork. They have not attended a training course, such as those established of late, but they have been fishing almost from infancy. They are highly skilled, possibly as skilled as the boys trained in the centres selected by the Department. If representations are made by these people, I assume there will be no difficulty in getting fishing craft for them—that is, provided the Parliamentary Secretary was right.
We shall do our best to help.
I am glad our fishery limits are being extended to six miles and, let us hope, eventually to 12 miles. I have always stated that it was not a difficult job to do that as a number of other countries, with fewer resources than we have, achieved it before us.
I agree with other Deputies that we should develop deep sea angling. It is very useful from the point of view of tourism in seaside places and we should encourage its development. Local councils are mainly responsible at present for its development and apparently they get little or no help from central funds.
Time and time again, I have referred to the desirability of protecting our fisheries and punishing those who contravene our fishery regulations. We should take whatever steps are necessary in that regard.
It is difficult to develop the frame of mind to respect our fishery laws until our fisheries are under public ownership. Long stretches of our rivers and a number of our lakes are held in private ownership. I inquired as to how the ownership arose. Two important stretches of river in County Cork were handed over to private ownership under a charter of King Charles II. As far as I can judge, all the other fisheries which are held privately are held under similar charters. Over the years, a number of these fisheries have changed hands. I believe there is an obligation on the State to take over those fisheries. They should compensate the present owners. I cannot see why some of the best stretches of river we have for salmon fishing, and some of our lakes, should be confined to the wealthier sections of our community, and should not be free for fishing by every citizen who equips himself with a licence, and complies with the Department's regulations. Those reserved fisheries are creating uneasiness, and they are a source of annoyance. I believe some Government, some day, or some person in charge of fisheries, will take active measures to bring such stretches of our rivers, now reserved, under public control. I do not want to labour the point further, but we see photographs in the paper of Lord So-and-So with 16 fish. Why did he catch 16 fish ? Because he was fishing on reserved fisheries.
They gave themselves up.
The Parliamentary Secretary is a young man, and I should like to make the same case to him as I made to Deputy Flanagan when he was in charge, and to the Minister for Transport and Power when he was in charge of our fisheries. I believe we should address ourselves to the question of taking over these reserved fisheries and making them public. If the Minister were to bring in a Bill seeking to do that, and to compensate the present owners, I think there would be general agreement on it.
The Deputy will appreciate that it is not in order to advocate legislation on the Estimate.
I know, but we will not have an opportunity of discussing this again.
I have allowed the Deputy to make the point.
I transgressed slightly because it might be necessary to bring in legislation to compensate them. However, I will move from that.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach made two contradictory statements when speaking about small piers. First of all, he said we should not have improved piers here, there and everywhere, facilitating individuals, but that we should have some balanced programme. Later on, he went into reverse gear and said he thought it most advisable for the Government to spend money on the development of small piers and harbours. He said he regretted very much that technical people went down from Dublin and made adverse reports because a pier or a slip was little used. He said he hoped that would not occur in the future. I agree with the second part of his statement in which he felt that money was usefully employed in carrying out reasonable improvements to these small piers and slips.
Knowing a big number of fishermen, and living adjacent to the sea, I must say that in Ireland we have some of the best fishermen in the world. The Parliamentary Secretary also mentioned Donegal fishermen, so, generally speaking, it seems our fishermen have attained a high standard of skill. Their incomes and conditions would be very much improved if we could help to improve the marketing conditions which, unfortunately, are not always remunerative. We must admit that £400,000 of this £607,000 is administrative money, and surely we have enough people in the Department to ensure that the best possible value is got for that money. I hope when we are dealing with this Estimate next year, the figures for our fish landings and the value of the fish caught will be much higher.
I should like to mention again the question of the establishment of a fishmeal factory in County Cork. I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to establish such a factory, unless he feels it would be an economic proposition. There is no use in going to County Cork, or any other place, and spending a huge sum of money to erect a fishmeal factory unless it is reasonable to assume it will be an economic proposition, that fish will be available to keep it going and that, in the course of time, if not in the early years, it will be able to stand on its own feet. Factories which are not able to do that and which are helped by State subventions from time to time are not much good, in my opinion.
The Parliamentary Secretary should now have knowledge of how fishmeal factories work. Are they giving good employment? Are they able to meet their commitments? If not, is the amount of subvention they get reasonable or small? I should like to put this suggestion forward as forcibly as I can. I should like to see a factory erected in County Cork if the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials are satisfied it would be a feasible proposition. The fishermen down there seem to think it would be.
The Parliamentary Secretary was speaking to the Minister when I mentioned the building at Schull. That building is nearly derelict now. Could it be converted into a fishmeal factory, or could it be utilised in some other way ? It cost several thousands of pounds, and it should not be left to lie derelict over the years. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that in reply to questions by me, time and again he held out hopes that that building would be utilised in the not too distant future. Those hopes have not materialised. When the Parliamentary Secretary is replying I should like some definite information on the Schull freezing plant.
Deputies from around our coast take a particular interest in this Estimate. I think it is agreed, even by the Opposition, that the statement made to the House today by the Minister, and to the fishermen for their information, is certainly very encouraging. The Parliamentary Secretary has certainly pushed the fishing industry a long way ahead. He has satisfied the fishermen to a great extent. I thank him particularly for having eased the situation in regard to hire purchase payments by fishermen on new boats. Any Parliamentary Secretary introducing an Estimate of this sort should understand that it is not easy for fishermen, in the course of a year, to meet hire purchase repayments. They have to contend with bad, uncertain weather and for six months at a time might be unable to put a boat to sea. In this matter, therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary has met an important need and he is to be congratulated.
Two years ago, there was severe weather in certain fishery areas. In my constituency, fishermen who normally earned a good harvest from escallop or marine fishing, because of severe frost found that the fish had died. I understand tests have been carried out there and wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell me if something can be done to reseed those beds. My information is that a few of the fish have been found alive but that it will take years, without reseeding, to get them back in sufficient quantities to enable fishermen to make a livelihood along that coast.
Fishery harbours have been mentioned and Deputies have referred to four—Killybegs, Castletownbere, Galway and Dunmore East. I am glad to see work is going ahead on them but I would draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the importance of the smaller harbours. When fishermen run into bad weather, which is quite frequent in my area, many fishermen have to run for shelter and unfortunately the smaller harbours, which are convenient and to which they could have recourse, have been neglected over the years. Some of them have been demolished by storms and high tides and have not been rebuilt. If representations are made to the Board of Works, one is told it is a matter for the Fishery Section who may, in turn, if the harbour is in the Gaeltacht, say it is a matter for Roinn na Gaeltachta. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to give somebody a prod and have something done about this important matter. In many cases a little cleaning up of the harbour bed would be sufficient.
In company with other Deputies, I welcome the scheme for the training of young fishermen, which has not come before its time. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on it. The more I see of the type of young men availing of this training scheme, the more hope I entertain for our fishing industry. When those men complete their training, they will be better able to handle larger craft and thus be able to spend a week or two at sea.
Some months ago, a group of American experts visited our shores to inspect our fishing facilities generally. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if he has yet received any recommendations from these experts. They visited my locality and I should like to know if they commented on the type of fishing engaged in there and whether they made any suggestions to improve the number and types of fish caught there.
Our territorial limits have been extended from three miles to six miles and will be further extended to 12 miles in due course. From this point of view, I wonder if better use could not be made of our helicopters for fishery-protection duty, for spot checks on our fishing grounds. I am afraid their effectiveness from this point of view will be limited so long as they are all stationed on the east coast. I suggest they be separated for at least a month at a time and that one be stationed at Dún Uí Mhaoilíosa. It could make trips out to the fishing grounds off the west coast in an effort to stop poaching trawlers coming to our grounds and taking the fish we need for ourselves.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if the helicopters were scattered in this way, they could give more effective protection than they can give at the moment while they are concentrated on the east coast. At the moment, a foreign trawler fishing inside our territorial waters has time to get outside in the two and a half hours it takes to notify the helicopter crew and to get the helicopter to the fishing ground concerned.
I would again appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to do something about the small fishing piers, to have them cleaned up and some of them rebuilt, if for nothing else than the safety of our fishermen who frequently have to run before bad weather. With better local piers, fishermen with smaller boats would feel safer. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, a storm could blow up within an hour and a half and therefore it is necessary to have piers available at which smaller boats can shelter. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for easing the conditions under which fishermen can buy nets on easy terms.
First of all, I should like to say I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary back in harness. I hope he has quite recovered from his recent mishap. Since I began to deal with him, he has been most courteous and approachable and I wish to have that put on record. Though I come from the seacoast I do not propose to deal with the question of sea fishing because it has been very well covered by Deputies who have already spoken. I shall, however, say I am glad agreement has been reached on the extension of territorial waters from three miles to six miles, and eventually to 12 miles.
Here the question arises as to how we shall protect the extended area. I understand it has been extremely difficult to afford protection even to the three mile limit. I add my voice to that of Deputy Geoghegan in urging on the Parliamentary Secretary to extend the use of our helicopters to try to solve this problem. Unless we can do that, it is no use welcoming the extension of our territorial waters because it is well known that foreign trawlers, even when they come right in to the coast, can get away before a patrol boat comes on the scene. It is important that some effort should be made at least to appear to be in a position to protect the fishing grounds, if it is intended to expand them.
The position in regard to the training of young fishermen is very gratifying. I mentioned on a previous occasion that it is quite common in fishing villages, even those on the east coast, for young men, when they cannot get proper training at home, to go on tramp vessels all over the world and then return home. It is much better that they should be trained by the Irish Government or by an Irish concern, if at all possible. I am glad that is being done.
While the Inland Fisheries Trust is doing an excellent job, as many Deputies have stated, there are complaints occasionally that when the coarse fish are being taken out of a lake and replaced probably with trout, a good job of the clearing is not being done, with the result that the coarse fish that are left grow fat and the trout disappear. I mentioned a particular instance about two years ago in Deputy Dillon's constituency, which is also that of the Minister for Transport and Power. At a place called Emyvale in Monaghan, after the lake had been cleared, the place was left for a number of years without further attention, with the result that there were fatter pike in it than in any other lake in the country. That was the net result. The place was finally cleared and a good job was done of it.
Reference was made to the sale of rainbow trout. It is only a few years since the Minister for Transport and Power, who was then in charge of Lands and Fisheries, was talking of the wonderful opportunity farmers in Cavan and Leitrim had, where there were waterlogged farms, to establish rainbow trout farms by the use of a shovel to enlarge the waterholes. Apparently, he did not know as much about trout as is known about them now.
I notice the value of exports of rainbow trout has increased to £25,739. That may seem a big sum but when it is remembered that one concern which started in this country got a £75,000 grant to start one rainbow trout farm, two years ago, it looks very small beer, to use a phrase which has been used excessively recently.
The principal matter to which I wish to refer is the question of local boards of conservators. There is a number of these boards which are doing an excellent job of fishery protection. Apparently, while the Department have been giving a subvention to these boards, they are attempting to force them into the position that they will increase the rates on farmers and landowners, to such an extent that they will not be able to carry on. A peculiar position has developed. People who are employed as fishery protection staff on rivers are being asked to work seven days or seven nights per week for as many as 12 hours at a stretch and the rate of pay is from £6 to a maximum of something under £8. The Department should do something about this matter and the Department are the only people who can do something about it.
There is no point in one of these boards of conservators deciding to increase waterkeepers' wages and passing the matter to the Department and getting a polite note in return to the effect that they can increase the wages by a certain amount but that the money must be found out of their own resources. The only resources available to the boards are got by the sale of licences—a portion of which goes to the Department—and by rating certain riparian owners. There are people such as those to whom Deputy Murphy referred who own valuable fisheries and who have got them through various means, in some instances through a charter of Charles II. They have them and they hold them. Personally, I believe the fishing rights should be retained by any private person who owns the land, not by anybody else. Some years ago the Land Commission, when they took over a farm for division, did not hand over the fishing rights to the person who was getting the allotment but allowed them to be retained in the possession of the original landowner or landlord. Some years ago they changed the system so that the Land Commission itself held the rights. Whether that was an improvement or not, is a very doubtful matter.
In many cases, those who have got fishing rights on their own land do not fish themselves but allow local persons or persons from the local town or from the city to engage in a day's fishing without charge. The people who fish must have a licence. If there is evidence of one salmon being caught, the Valuation Office will impose a rateable valuation on the land. The landowner does not fish; he merely obliges his friends and acquaintances. It is unfortunate for him that he has to pay the local board of conservators in respect of a stretch of river which he does not use. The boards can do nothing about it because the Valuation Office has laid down the amount to be paid. In many cases, the landowner has to pay as much for that stretch of river as he has to pay in the ordinary rates.
The Parliamentary Secretary would have no responsibility for the Valuation Office, I take it.
I am afraid he has. The Minister has the responsibility for this particular activity of the Valuation Office. He is the one person who can make a decision in the matter because it is the Fisheries Section who notify what the valuations are. It is the Fisheries Section that is mainly responsible for it.
I suggest that this is being done mainly because the Department are attempting to make the local boards of conservators self-supporting. It just cannot be done. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of this. In order to try to live within their income with the subvention from the State, which is miserly, having regard to the amount being given in other directions, the boards of conservators have to try to pay as low a rate of wages as possible to the fisheries protection staff. That is highly undesirable.
The Parliamentary Secretary, who has many bright ideas, who has done a great deal since he became Parliamentary Secretary and has effected many changes, would be well advised to effect a change in this respect. The Department can do one of two things. They can make the necessary money available from State funds to the boards of conservators or they should have a national fishery protection vote.
There was a suggestion some time ago that the workers concerned, who are not comparable with ordinary rural labourers, who are not comparable with farm labourers, although their wages were tied to the rate for farm labourers up to recently—many of them are getting less than the farm labourers are getting—could not be compared with ESB labourers or Bord na Móna labourers. In my opinion, they are comparable with one particular category, namely, the guards, because the duties they are doing are exactly the same and they may be dangerous enough, as the Parliamentary Secretary is aware. There have been occasions where these people have had to go to hospital and found themselves, unless they had a medical card, responsible for their hospital bills at the end of a period. There was a proposal about two years ago that a pension scheme should be introduced for these people. There was a lot of talk here about it and it was announced with a great blowing of trumpets that it was to come but then it became hush-hush, and it was said it only applied to supervisory staff, but now it does not and it has completely disappeared. It has become a bad word which is not even mentioned.
I mentioned it. I have very good news for the Deputy.
I am delighted to hear it and I shall be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary will clarify this matter when he is concluding. Deputy Murphy referred to the people who own private fisheries. Recently I came across something which should not be allowed. I brought it to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary but I have not received a final decision on it yet. The people who are employed as waterkeepers are responsible to the boards of conservators for preventing illegal fishing and nothing else. Recently people with private fisheries —some of these are immensely rich syndicates who rent waters—have been attempting to use these people for what they call trespass duty, to keep people off the land. That is not their duty and they have no authority to do it. The Department must stop this practice before it becomes general. They are trying to get the fishery boards to pay for waterkeepers and bailiffs for themselves. If they have so much money, they should pay for their own bailiffs and waterkeepers and not attempt to impose on somebody else. The attempt is resented very much by the waterkeepers.
The salmon levy has been mentioned. This was an ill-conceived idea from the start. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of what happened. Early in the season, few salmon are caught but the prices are high and pay the fishermen well. Since the levy is paid per lb. of salmon sold, it does not cost very much but later if they are lucky and if there is a big run of fish, the fishermen catch a lot—I am referring particularly to net fishermen— and the prices drop but still the same levy is paid per lb. That is wrong and the levy should not be collected from these people. There is no reason why it should be continued. The necessary money should be paid by the State and should not be collected from anybody else.
In regard to the question of mussels some time ago I brought a deputation to the Parliamentary Secretary and he did what he then promised to do. He undertook to examine the possibility of finding a market for mussels in the Boyne area. The market was found and the people who make their living from mussel-picking in the winter season were able to sell the fish, whereas if he had not done that, the fish would either be left on their hands or in the river.
Many people do not appreciate the fact that the salmon fishing season starts in most places on 12th February and finishes on 12th August. No matter how much money is made catching the fish during that period, it must tide them over until the next February. It is only in places like the Boyne area where there are a lot of mussels that they can pick up any extra money out of season. They can pick mussels and if they have a market, they can make their living from them during the winter. They do not ask anything of anybody. They do not ask for social welfare, although I notice that the Minister for Social Welfare is to give them modified benefits under the new proposals, but these will not be of very much use to them and they would prefer to live without them.
Unfortunately in places like the Boyne area, the mussel is contaminated with the typhus bug. Most of them cannot be eaten by an outsider but the local people can eat them without difficulty—I suppose because they are immune—and they can eat them out of their hands. I was interested to hear about the prices for which shellfish are sold in London and that the price for a small jar of mussels is more than one would pay for a cwt. bag of mussels on the banks of the Boyne. The mussels are contaminated because in Drogheda they are allowed to pump open sewage into the river. In this year of 1964, some effort should be made to prevent that sort of thing from continuing. It has been happening in Drogheda for hundreds of years. There was a question of purification tanks, a question, I think, which caused a Government to be changed. A number of these were to be erected and one was to go to Drogheda and as a result of that promise, a Party which had two seats lost one and another Party got two. The purification tank did not follow the change of Government. However, that is another story. Possibly the Parliamentary Secretary would say whether there are any modern types of purification tanks because if they can be provided at a reasonable cost, the mussel industry in places such as Mornington could benefit very much and the people who are making a frugal living from the mussels during the winter could make a decent living.
The other way in which the problem could be dealt with is some method of processing. I understand that mussels are processed in factories and sold but that is not the responsibility of the Government but of somebody else. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would consider whether it would be possible to have some type of processing plant erected if the purification tank is not available. There are about 40 families involved in this industry which is traditional to them and they should get every encouragement.
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the assistance he gave me on matters which I brought to his attention and I hope the matters I have now brought to his notice will receive the same attention.
I am prompted to speak on this Estimate because Deputy Geoghegan repeated what I said here either on the Vote for the Department of Fisheries or on the Vote for the Department of Defence in connection with the protection of our coasts by helicopters. If we were to do this adequately, I feel we would require more helicopters. Certainly we should have one based at Renmore for this purpose and landing and refuelling facilities should be provided there. I have another form of protection in mind, that is, the protection of the fishing fleet at Galway docks. I have brought this to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention already. At the moment there is a scheme in progress at Galway docks which has disrupted all the facilities for the trawlers. There are other docks there known as the mud docks. There is a hulk lying there which is an eyesore and which is of no advantage. I brought this matter to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary says it is the responsibility of the Galway Harbour Commissioners and they say it is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary.
It is their responsibility.
Is there anything the Parliamentary Secretary can do to force their hand?
The Deputy knows. I have done my best in that respect.
I am afraid his best is not good enough. I have also in mind the need for the extension of the pier at Kilronan for the protection of boats. I know it is the responsibility of another Parliamentary Secretary. Overnight with the wrong wind, the fishing fleet could be totally destroyed. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to use his good offices to have the work of the extension of that pier expedited.
Many people would like to know what is the policy of the Department in connection with the fish plant at Galway docks. We have been told in the past that they would be prepared to hand it over to any firm that would accept it. That is on the records of the House. If that is so, then I feel there is no policy in relation to its future. Do the Department intend to hand it over to a private concern?
I should like to assure the Parliamentary Secretary of my support in relation to the training scheme at the vocational school at Galway. As a member of the City of Galway Vocational Committee, I can assure him I speak for the rest of the members in offering our full support for any furtherance of that scheme.
There are many rivers flowing through Galway city and I should like to know what can be done to improve fishing in these rivers. Galway is a tourist centre and if it were feasible, many visitors would avail of rivers other than the protected river. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to examine the possibility of improving fishing facilities in our canals and rivers.
Ó bheith ag éisteacht leis an Teachta Ó Flanagáin ag caint annso tráthnóna, shílfeadh duine nach ndearna an tAire, an Rúnaí Párlaiminte ná an Roinn faic na frighde chun cúrsaí iascaireachta a chur chun críche ar chóstaí na hÉireann. Dhearmad sé innsint dúinn gur deineadh méadú mór ar na deontaisí do na daoine a bhí ag iarraidh báid a cheannach ón uair a bhí an Teachta in a Rúnaí Párlaiminte don Roinn céanna. Dhearmad sé a innsint dúinn an méadú atá ar an lion d'iascairí óga a théionn le cúrsaí tréineála d'fhonn iad féin a chur in oiriúint chun slí bheatha a bhaint amach ar an bhfairrge. Nuair a bhíonn daoine ag plé ceiste ar bith, go minic cuireann siad a dtaobh féin den scéal os cóir an phobail ach ba chóir do dhuine a bhíonn ag caint sa Tigh so an dá thaobh a thabhairt go cothromach don phobal.
Ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuilimid buíoch don Rúnaí Párlaiminte as ucht an méid a rinne sé chun bealaigh a dhéanamh do bhradáin in aghaidh an easa in Inis Diomáin agus na héisc a leigint isteach ins na haibhnte beaga. Ón uair a deineadh na bealaigh sin tá go leor leor ruacaigh nó lucht cuairde ag teacht ann ag iascaireacht. Caitheann gach duine aca sin roint mhaith airgid san áit is baineann gach aicme tairbhe as an airgead.
Ba mhaith liom an Roinn do mholadh mar gheall ar an obair a rinneadar chun éisc garbh do ghlanadh as an bhFeargus agus na locha a ghabhann léi. Ó shoin i leith tá anchuid ruacaigh ag teacht go hInis agus an ceanntar maguaird agus caitheann siad carn airgid san áit. Tá cúis gearáin agamsa, ámh. Tá lear mór uisce ó Luimneach go Loch Lorgaín. Sa tsean aimsear bhí daoine ag gabháil den iascaireacht sa tSionainn agus san Fhairrge Mhóir. Ní raibh de chóir aca ach curraigh agus tá na curraigh sin i dtreoghadh cois cladaigh anois. Obair tradisiúnta abea an t-iascaireacht annsin ach níl na daoine óga sásta claoi le slí bheatha den cineál sin. Ní raibh go leor airgid aca, fiú amháin leis na deontaisí atá le fáil, chun báid do cheannach agus dá bhrí sin ní feictear aoinne ag iascaireacht ar chósta an Chláir anois. Bhí caladhphoirt i Choibhrinn, i gCarraig an Chobhaltaigh, i gCill Bheathach, i gCaoillte, i gCúisín agus i Lios Ceannúir agus na céadta duine ag iascaireacht óna háiteacha sin fadó. Iarraim ar an Rúnaí Párlaiminte iarracht a dhéanamh ar báid do chur ar fáil dóibh siúd a chlaoinn le hiascaireacht i gCaoillte agus Lios Ceannúir agus má ghníonn sé amhlaidh béimid uilig buíoch dó.
Molaim an obair atá déanta ag an Rúnaí Párlaiminte ón uair a toghadh é agus ba mhaith liom é a ghríosadh chun tuille oibre a dhéanamh. Má dhéineann sé amhlaidh tabharfaidh mise moladh dá réir dó.
The statement by the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned all the good news but it did not refer to some matters which should have been mentioned. The Parliamentary Secretary must agree that the inshore fishermen are far from happy. It will be remembered that during the past 12 months supplies of fish were withdrawn from Dublin city by the fishermen because they were not satisfied with the system of marketing their catches and the prices they were getting. It led to the situation where it was necessary for various types of fish to be imported here for home consumption which could have been supplied by the inshore fishermen.
When dealing with fishery policy, the Parliamentary Secretary seems to neglect the east coast. I refer to the fishermen who operate in the area stretching down from Newry to Wexford and particularly in Skerries and Howth. I can assure him that the fishermen in those places are far from happy. The revenue from their catches has fallen considerably compared with previous years. They seem to be getting no encouragement of a practical or constructive kind from the Parliamentary Secretary. There has been agitation for a very long time for the provision of an extension at Skerries harbour. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary did take a walk around Skerries with the Fianna Fáil Deputy for the county and with a Fianna Fáil county councillor. Apparently, nobody else exists when it comes to trying to get some political advantage out of matters that should be the concern of supporters of all political Parties and who should be consulted.
The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the case made for this extension at Skerries and therefore I shall not repeat the facts here. He knows the problems regarding the landing of fish and the tides affecting Balbriggan and Skerries. He will also have on record that Skerries is an ideal place for fishing boats, because whenever there is a storm, for a distance of approximately 50 miles along the coast, the most sheltered spot is Skerries if the tide will allow boats to come in. Therefore, the extension of the harbour would provide more space for greater numbers of fishing boats and a greater measure of safety. At times even coalboats have come into Skerries, due to weather conditions.
The Minister's statement mentioned a succession of successes. He compared last year's figures with this year's in many respects to show that progress is being made but so far as the east coast is concerned, and particularly from Drogheda to Howth, the important thing is to ensure that those engaged in fishing are assured of a real market for their catch and a satisfactory marketing system. Dublin housewives were left without fish for a number of days when the fishermen felt that was the only way to bring to public notice that the Parliamentary Secretary apparently was not taking the action that would seem necessary to placate them, give them some satisfaction and encourage them.
I met them immediately and settled it.
I know that. That was the Parliamentary Secretary's job and he did it, but I am complaining about his policy which led to this position. It would never have been necessary for him to meet the fishermen but for the circumstances which brought that situation about, and which he solved by meeting those concerned.
I was glad to see from the Estimate that tourist angling is improving very considerably. That is very important and anything that can be done should be done to encourage angling enthusiasts to come here, from Britain and France particularly, to engage in inland fishing. This country provides excellent conditions for angling enthusiasts. They spend a considerable amount of money in the right places in rural areas where people, because of their location, have not the same opportunities as urban dwellers living near factories which are prospering. Tourist anglers spend money in the rural areas from which the people are flying, not so much in search of prosperity but because they are unable to make ends meet and are down at subsistence level. As a result, the greatest emigration is taking place from rural areas. According to statistics, something like 25,000 people emigrated last year and in previous years, more than that emigrated.
That is right.
If the angling tourists are encouraged to come here in greater numbers, no doubt the money they bring to rural areas adjoining rivers and streams will help the people there to make ends meet, to remain at home and engage in a type of industry and activity appropriate to angling areas.
The figures for the export of certain classes of fish are very encouraging. We see that over £750,000 was received from the export of salmon. Compared with total export receipts, that is very small, but an encouraging fact is that it is increasing rapidly so that if anything more can be done to increase salmon exports and resulting revenue, that would be a good side of the problem on which to concentrate.
We could export a lot of cod also.
You do not get them inland.
There is a lot of it around Roscommon this weather.
Deputy Coogan has already spoken. He should allow Deputy Rooney to continue.
I should pay tribute to those engaged in the export of salmon. The Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to whatever little measure of credit he should get but the real credit must go to those actively seeking the markets, making the contracts and getting the salmon from the fishermen around the coast, particularly the west coast, in such a way as to ensure that those engaged in this enterprise are getting a good reward for their efforts. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to increase, if he can in any way do so, the amount of salmon available. It would be a considerable help if he can do so.
A certain measure of science is coming into this aspect of fishing, both inland and offshore. It is a welcome development and I hope the Department will avail of any scientific knowledge there is available to ensure that our streams and rivers will be restocked up to the hilt, and that there will not be any lack of quality or quantity of fish through any neglect on the part of the Department. There is no doubt that the restocking has very great advantages and is giving results.
I mentioned Balbriggan earlier. Silting occurs here fairly frequently and if the Minister could arrange for the dredging of the harbour more regularly, it would bring more benefits and advantages to the fishermen who make use of it. The Parliamentary Secretary should make great efforts towards the organised marketing of fish, particularly on behalf of the fishermen, to ensure that they will get a fair price. We often see the price per stone which they are getting for fish, and when we look at the price which the housewife and consumer must pay, we feel there ought to be more for the fishermen in it when there is such a great margin between the retail price and the amount which these fishermen are being paid for the fresh fish.
I notice Bord Iascaigh Mhara have ceased to interest themselves in the trading of fish which they did in the past under a scheme where repayment of the cost of the boats was concerned. Instead of that, they have now concentrated their efforts on the provision of suitable boats for the fishermen. There are some aspects of this fishing that seem to offer an opportunity for expansion. There is a delicacy called smoked eel. I feel, as a result of a great expansion in the export of eel, that it could be extended even further. Smoked eel is a delicacy which, I believe with the quality of eel available in this country, could be expanded considerably.
The same applies to trout. The export of rainbow trout has increased by 50 per cent in the past 12 months. Of course, the answer to that is that markets for these rainbow trout have been found by the enterprising exporters and traders and I believe those markets have been expanded considerably. As far as the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department are concerned, if efforts are made to increase our stocks of rainbow trout—as I say, the fishfarms are making good progress—and if our streams and rivers are restocked and care is given to this aspect of the development, the exporters and the enterprising traders will be able to find markets for much greater exports of rainbow trout.
It seems our opportunities are great so far as the export of fish is concerned. Unfortunately, the quantity of fish up to the moment has been very limited, but if we can take steps to secure a vast increase in the stock of fish inland in our streams and rivers, we can then depend on the exporters to find a market for them. Generally speaking, this inland fishing has great potentialities, particularly from the tourist angling point of view. Last year the value of our tourist angling was almost £2 million and it can be expanded much further, having regard to the suitability of this country for that type of fishing.
The Parliamentary Secretary should not hesitate to cut out any red tape or green tape which would in any way prevent the further expansion of this tourist angling aspect of our economy. It is possible some selfish people think our attitude and our action can do a great deal of harm so far as our angling tourists and visitors to this country are concerned. A careful watch should be made to ensure that visiting anglers do not go away with a bad impression but will come back with several more of their friends to fish here.
That is what is actually happening. Visiting anglers to this country enjoy it so much and go home so happy that they bring back their friends to this country to enjoy the sport of angling. I am sure that will continue because we have the natural advantages of the attractions here which are not available in Great Britain and any continental country. There is a wonderful potential from that point of view and this is one side at least of this general problem on which the Parliamentary Secretary can concentrate further. As I say, he can come to this House in years to come and show even better figures, whatever advantages he may have to claim for himself. Certainly if the exporters are given their opportunities by whatever work the Department does in this matter of seeing that greater quantities of fish are made available for exporters, it will all add up to an important aspect of our economy.
There are a few matters I wish to speak about on this Estimate. The first is the delay, apart from the fisheries, in the extension of Ballycotton pier. Every Minister and Parliamentary Secretary who came to look after fisheries in their time made promise after promise. We never got beyond the promises, with the exception of a few preparations which were made in connection with it. We never got anywhere beyond putting it on paper. Ballycotton, in addition to being a good fishing centre, is also a paradise for tourist anglers during the summer months. I suggest to the Minister that he might take it in hand now and see that something is done about it.
A second matter I want to deal with is the protection of our fishermen at Youghal harbour. That matter has been raised by me here repeatedly. There are some 200 families depending for their livelihood on the fishing in Youghal harbour. Again, we got as far as to get the Department to send down their engineers and we had the present protection examined and partly altered. We also got so far as to get the council to guarantee, on their side, money for it. Then suddenly something happened. It is hard on the fishermen when they see their boats and nets, on which they are depending for a livelihood, smashed up in both Ballycotton and Youghal. Evidence of that has been repeatedly given to the Department. In fact, one time it went so far that Deputy Flanagan promised he would have a job done in a week and all he did was give a box in which to put the fishermen in cold storage until such time as the job was done.
I put that box there for the Deputy himself.
The last time the Deputy came down, I hoped they would land him into it.
I thought cold storage might be good for the Deputy.
Ná bac leis.
Those are the two main points on which I should like to have a reply from the Minister. I have also wondered why we cannot get sufficient fish for processing in the Kinsale factory. The French tried it. They failed. Nobody now is capable except General Costello, who makes a success of anything he takes in hands if he is allowed. I should like the Minister to investigate the reason why prawns cannot be got there. Is there some monopoly in the prawn industry to the roots of which we cannot get? I believe there is.
I know time is short, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and the last thing I wish to touch on is protection for our fishermen. I have dealt with the protection they require inside for their boats. If we are to have an extended area now I should like the Minister to give us some idea of the protection he will afford those fishermen. It is very hard on Irish fishermen to see foreign trawlers coming in taking the bite out of their mouths. I suggest the present protection is not sufficient and that steps should be taken in that direction.
I am glad this debate on the whole has taken a constructive turn and it is a pleasure to come here from the election fields in County Roscommon to a constructive debate on a practical matter of economic development in which we are all interested.
Deputy Flanagan sought to cast a general atmosphere of gloom over the business, which is entirely at variance with the facts and figures. The facts are last year was a record year in regard to fish and fish products. Receipts last year from angling tourism went up by 30 per cent, so that exports, both visible and invisible in regard to fisheries came to the figure of £3½ million. This again is a record figure on both sides of the fishery activities. These facts should be sufficient to show that progress has been made in the expansion of both our sea and inland fisheries. Indeed, those can be improved considerably and that is why on the sea fishery side various incentives, grants and low interest loan facilities have been made available to fishermen to purchase new boats, secondhand boats, to re-engine and re-equip their existing boats. These substantial grants, which account for up to 35 per cent in some cases of the cost of the vessel, where the loan is repaid within ten years, are a very positive incentive on the production side.
I should like to correct one misapprehension in the debate on the Fisheries Estimate this year, that is, that the problem in relation to fisheries is one of marketing. It is not. There is no problem today in selling fish either at home or abroad. Our only problem is to catch more. Our main policy objective at the moment is to improve the catching power of the fleet and that is why these grants, loans and incentives are available to our fishermen who are now going into bigger and more powerful boats. I should like to see the day when our owner skipper fishermen will go into mid-water trawlers and further afield. They are progressing in that direction at the moment. We have now a number in excess of 65 feet in length, some 70 and 80 feet. This is an important development and one which we wish to encourage. All the information at our disposal makes it quite plain that selling fish is no problem in the world today. Our whole difficulty is to fill export orders which have been got by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Export orders and contracts are available provided we secure the necessary quantities of fish.
Internally the same situation obtains. The one difficulty on the home market has been referred to here and that is the over-emphasis on Friday consumption of fish. That is a problem right enough and that is why we have initiated various publicity measures, radio and television advertising, to encourage more fish consumption as well as the eat more fish publicity campaign and the very successful national fish cookery competition which this year attracted 18,000 entries from girls in vocational and secondary schools all over the country. This sort of market development is the right development to encourage people to consume fish otherwise than for penetential reasons on Friday. This aspect has been a limiting factor on the home market.
It was mentioned here, and in the Press, that there is an apparent discrepancy between the price paid to the fisherman and the price the housewife has to pay. The major factor here is one day consumption in the week. Overheads have to be paid and staff have to be paid on a single day's consumption. If the consumption could be spread out over the whole week there would be a more stable market and this would bring down the prices and provide a steady output for the fishermen as well. That is the main purpose of our publicity, development and promotion on the marketing side.
With regard to exports, they were never more promising than they are now. That is shown in the expansion of exports in relation to quality fish products which are in great demand on the export market. I mentioned specific ones in my opening statement—salmon, eels, prawns, rainbow trout. These four items have increased by practically 30 per cent where exports are concerned over the past 12 months. There is an unlimited market for these particular fish products.
Deputy Dillon referred to Dublin Bay prawns and spoke about the danger of over-fishing. I think there is again a misapprehension here. Even though they are called Dublin Bay prawns they are largely caught off Deputy M. P. Murphy's constituency, that is, off the south west coast. Of course, they are also caught in Dublin. Dublin Bay prawn is a very good brand because the name is world wide. The prawns, however, are in unlimited supply on the south coast. From that point of view, Deputy Dillon's fears are groundless. Prawns are also in quantity off the east coast right up to Clogherhead. There is no danger of over-fishing. The Sugar Company are having difficulty in buying prawns. The reason for that is that there is such a tremendous demand for fresh and frozen prawns on the export market. So long as the demand is there to the extent that it is at the moment, anybody engaged in processing here will have difficulty in obtaining the necessary supplies. If the demand were less, the processors, such as Kinsale Canneries, would have a better chance of getting a bigger supply.
What is the overall percentage increase in exports?
The total percentage increase of all fish products is in the region of ten.
How were the landings in comparison with last year?
The landings are about level. Exports are up by ten per per cent on all fish products but, in regard to particular fish products, exports are up by practically 50 per cent.
The value is up but not the landings.
Landings are maintaining themselves. Exports are going up because there is an increasing demand on foreign markets for our fish products. This situation is one that gives our producers a great chance, and that is why we feel the greatest good to the industry can be done by further incentives to our fishermen to land more fish in order to fill the market that is available.
Deputy Flanagan raised queries about the 22 new boats which went into commission in the past 12 months. He sought to imply that these are replacing old boats. That is not the case. These were additions to the fleet. Any boats resumed by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara where purchasers default are resold to other purchasers, and there is no lack of such purchasers since our training scheme got under way. One factor which has increased the catching power of the fleet in recent years is the extension of loan facilities to the purchase of secondhand boats. I think that policy can be fully defended since there are many cases in which skippers would not be in a position, even with the aid of loans and grants, to go to the financial extent of buying a new boat. We now give these loan facilities to enable them to buy secondhand boats. Skippers can make their way up then, and it is much better than crippling them with the burden of paying for a new boat before they have had a chance to make enough money to carry that burden. A number of secondhand boats have been bought. They were brought in from abroad by our own fishermen, and they have contributed to an expansion in the catching power.
Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Dillon referred to Bord Iascaigh Mhara withdrawing from the trading side, and sought to imply there was some conflict in overall Government policy when compared with An Bord Bainne and the Pigs and Bacon Commission. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in its present role is in an identical position with both the Pigs and Bacon Commission and An Bord Bainne. Neither of these bodies engage in private trading on the home market. They are development organisations which seek to bring exporters together, encourage them to co-operate in the export field, and advise on various methods of expanding their industries. Neither organisation engages in private trading on the home market in competition with private interests. All three organisations are development organisations which seek to bring together the various interests in their particular industries and develop them.
Somewhat disparaging reference was made to the fact that fishermen are now organised into co-operative organisations in some instances. Surely this is an encouraging trend. Our fishermen have come together, in Killybegs, Dingle, and on the Dublin market, and are running their business in a co-operative way. We have encouraged that development. I am glad to report that these organisations are operating on a profitable basis. The Dingle Fishermen's Co-operative was recently able to announce a trading net profit of over £3,000 for the current 12 months of operation. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara seconded staff to the Dingle Fishermen's Co-operative and gave all the advice and help they possibly could. The development has proved a very successful one.
Deputy Flanagan referred to the smaller harbours. I think Deputy M. P. Murphy had something to say about them too. To clear the air finally in regard to this matter, I should like to say that the Government have embarked on a planned programme in relation to five major fishery harbours. In addition, by way of direct grant, smaller harbours are also under improvement. There is no neglect of smaller harbours where they can make a case for improved landing facilities, if the landings are, in fact, taking place. We cannot do anything in regard to places where landings are no longer taking place. Where there are sufficient landings to justify economic development we will help.
At the moment work is about to start on a very successful small harbour in Wexford, Kilmore Quay. That is a typical example of a small harbour which is expanding its landings. We have given a 50 per cent grant to the Wexford County Council, and work will start shortly. There are other schemes for smaller harbours, such as Renard Point at Cahirciveen near Valentia Island. Schemes have been completed for Clogherhead and Enniscrone. A further scheme is in progress already for Passage East. I understand in answer to Deputy Kyne that the grant has been sanctioned. I gather it is now a matter for the county council to come up with their contribution towards the scheme.
Where does Ballycotton stand?
That rests with the local authority, the Cork County Council.
It was with the Cork County Council ten years ago.
That is a matter outside my bailiwick. The Deputy should raise it with the Cork County Council.
What about Kilronan?
I shall not answer individual queries at this stage. I will answer in my own good time. Deputy Dillon spoke at some length, and destructively in many respects, following Deputy Flanagan on this question of Bord Iascaigh Mhara trading, which as I have emphasised, in no way affects the market for fish and fish products here. As both Deputy Murphy and Deputy Rooney stated, middlemen are essential. In the past there has been too much sectional wrangling in the fishing industry. Statements, such as some of those made by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Flanagan, do nothing to help in the matter. Everybody is in business for his own betterment, be he producer, middleman or other person in the chain of business. One would hope that the expansion of his business would help the expansion of the industry as a whole.
In the very nature of our sea fisheries, with a widely dispersed catching fleet around the coast and a number of small harbours, it is essential to have somebody who will be available to act as middleman, as buyer. It would be impossible for any State organisation in such circumstances to undertake to purchase all the catch of Irish fishermen. I am certain the fishermen themselves would resent that. In fact, it is beneficial to the fishermen that there should be plenty of competition amongst buyers for their catch. That is commonsense.
I do not see any reason why the State should get involved. I am a believer in State enterprise in many fields, but in this particular field, to engage in the total buying of all the fish landed by Irish fishermen, as appeared to be suggested at some stage by Deputy Dillon, is an indefensible proposition which would only lead to the fishermen being beggared. No State organisation could hope in those circumstances, with a widely dispersed fleet and small harbours, to have an efficient enough organisation to pay the fisherman the price he is now getting due to the competition engendered by the number of those competing for his catch. I believe he is better off in present circumstances than he would be under any such arrangement.
Deputy Murphy raised the question of having a fishmeal plant on the south coast. This leads me to the general question of surpluses mentioned by Deputy Kyne. Again, this is a problem which ties up with what I said initially. There is no great problem in disposing of fish. Surpluses have been very few and far between in recent years because of this fact. That can be proved in this way. Due to pressure from the east and south coasts for the establishment of fishmeal factories, two years ago, we decided to bring in a scheme to subsidise the transport of surplus fish for fishmeal to either Killybegs or the Burnhouse meal factory in Ballinasloe. That scheme has cost very little money over the past two years. It is available and has been used at certain peak landing periods and has proved very useful. The few surpluses that have arisen on the south and east coasts have been disposed of by transport to the fishmeal factories I have mentioned. On those occasions the fishermen got the fishmeal price; we paid for the transport. The cost of this scheme has been a matter of only a couple of thousand pounds each year.
That proves, first, that the problem of surpluses is no longer a problem at all, and secondly, that there is no case, until we develop further and until the fishmeal factories can be worked to capacity, for further fishmeal factory development. The factory at Killybegs is going ahead well. The surpluses are adequate, but not excessive. Again, that is a good sign. It proves an outlet has been found for fish products other than fishmeal, which is the basement price. It is a good sign when the higher prices for processed and fresh fish can be obtained rather than the bottom price of fishmeal.
The overall objective of sea fisheries is in accordance with the targets in the Programme for Economic Expansion. We hope in the decade 1960-70 to raise production in this field by more than the 50 per cent we hope for in other fields of economic activity. These targets have been set and the investment to achieve them is also envisaged. Indeed, in the present Estimate, investment will be up by one-third on last year. This emphasises the fact that progress has its price, and the substantial increase in the Fisheries Estimate is the price that must be paid by us if we wish to go ahead in this field as in every other field of economic activity.
We feel there is scope for expansion if we have the right way of doing it by having An Bord Iascaigh Mhara as a development organisation to promote market development, to assist private enterprise and co-operative organisation in the development of markets and to assist in the development of catching power by giving grants, loans and incentives to our fishermen.
Deputy Geoghegan asked about the report of the US team of specialists who came here to examine our fishery problems. I am glad to say that report has been received by the Government and will be published very shortly. It was very practical and detailed and we are examining its recommendations now. We feel these recommendations will be of considerable assistance to us in dealing with certain problems in regard to planning our sea fishing industry. We are very thankful to the US Government for making these specialists available to us. Their suggestions covered the whole field and indeed many of the topics touched in the course of this debate. They covered sea fishing development, boat and gear development, marketing development and so on.
A very important achievement during the past 12 months has been the extension of our fishery limits, the six mile limit of which will come into operation on 1st January, 1966. This will make available double the present waters to our fishermen. That is why it is important to plan for the future when we will have these extra waters absolutely available to us. It is not my problem to ensure protection of it, but I am certain proper steps will be taken to ensure that the extra area of water available to our fishermen will be fully protected. We are preparing for that future by engaging in the very important training and educational schemes mentioned in the opening statement.
Were those waters not always available to us?
I said they will now be available absolutely to us. At the moment we have 70 boys engaged in training courses around the coast. When these boys complete the course and go on to do the skipper's course in the college in Deputy Coogan's constituency, they will be fully equipped fishermen well able to handle modern, high-powered boats in the further waters which will be available to us. We have 70 of them at the moment. Forty of them have already qualified. We are confident that the 70, in addition to the 40, will provide the nucleus of a trained skipper force which can man our fleet in the future.
I think it would be fair to pay a tribute at this stage to Captain Woolley.
That is very true. He has been a great help to us. Apart from the actual trainees who are trained to be fishermen, up to 40 fishermen have already taken the skipper's course in the past four years. The trainee fishermen now have added to their curriculum a new residential course at Haulbowline in Cork. In conjunction with the Naval Service, these trainees from 16 to 18 years, after a few months of practical experience, come ashore and learn up-to-date theory, knowledge of methods, and so on, and go on to a further practical course, so that, at the end of their two years, they are fully qualified seamen in every sense of the word. They are ready to work as fishermen and to be rated for the further skipper's course to enable them to take out their ticket.
The residential scheme was instituted last March in conjunction with the Naval Service. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Department of Defence for helping in that respect. It is an ideal combination to have our trainee fishermen receive the very same training as our naval recruits and to get the same disciplined approach to the particular vocation which they wish to follow. Vocational committees throughout the country have been helpful. The County Cork Vocational Education Committee and the City of Galway Vocational Education Committee come to mind. The publicity side of our fish cookery competition was publicised by vocational schools throughout the country.
On the inland fisheries side, I mentioned the very gratifying increase of over 30 per cent in the income last year from angling tourism. As Deputy Dillon said, it shows that many of the people who in the past did not wish well the development of our inland fisheries have been proved wrong. The Inland Fisheries Trust have undertaken work in respect of Lough Sheelin and other lakes and their clearance of lakes such as the Corrib have made some of the best fishing grounds in western Europe available to anglers.
There is nothing I detest more than to hear internal wrangling between fishermen as to which is the better type of fishing to promote. Some say we should push coarse fishing, that we should not bother with game fishing, and so on. We have plenty of water to cater for all types of fishing. The Trust are fully aware of that. They seek to clear a lake in each area for trout fishing and to leave available in every vicinity ample coarse fishing. The ideal is to have available all types of fishing —salmon angling, trout fishing, coarse fishing and sea angling as well. We have so much water around our coast, and inland, that there need be no conflict between these various interests. It requires only a measure of commonsense to iron out these difficulties.
Lough Sheelin has proved a wonderful success in the development of inland fisheries. I feel that Lough Ennel, near Mullingar, and Lough Arrow, near Boyle, in my constituency, will also prove to be amenities of equal value next year. There is considerable development by the Inland Fisheries Trust at the moment. I am certain that work will be fruitful.
Deputy Tully and Deputy Flanagan mentioned the staffs of the boards of conservators. At the moment, we have prepared details of a scheme for the key personnel on the boards of conservators to provide for their recruitment in a proper way through interview by the Local Appointments Commission, or something of that nature, and also to provide for their permanency and superannuation. At the moment, that scheme is being discussed by the Council of the Boards of Conservators. They will have to come back to me for further discussion, which I hope to have within the next six weeks, and then we hope to make decisions in the matter. This will involve extra finance and discussion on the ways and means of raising the necessary money for this purpose.
At present, the key personnel of boards of conservators (1) are not recruited in the best possible way, and (2) I feel have not got the necessary guarantee of permanent employment and superannuation now available in most occupations. Their occupation is essential for the conservation and preservation of our inland fisheries. That is why it is important to have trained staff, properly recruited, with superannuated rights, and so on.
The increased grant of one-third in the Estimate is reflected in a substantial increase of 40 per cent, for instance, towards Bord Iascaigh Mhara and another substantial increase this year to the Inland Fisheries Trust, which brings this grant-in-aid up to £90,000, which is the highest figure ever granted to the Trust and it is guaranteed to them next year. They have been guaranteed permanency for a number of years ahead free from variations in their grant-in-aid. That will enable them to plan for the future. I feel that the work of the Trust will continue to be of value.
Deputy Coogan mentioned angling amenities in Galway. I had a discussion with the Corrib Anglers Federation about proposals for the river in that area. I feel something will emerge for the benefit of the people there. It is clear that there is great scope for development in that area. It will be an obvious amenity for tourists, in addition to the other amenities already there, including Deputy Coogan.
I am very glad, generally, of the reception of this Estimate. The work will continue in the 12 months ahead. We have taken the right decisions, even though Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Dillon may disagree with some of them. We feel that the decisions on the sea fisheries side and on the inland fisheries side are right. The main emphasis in regard to investment in relation to sea fisheries will be to encourage the catching side of the industry to a great extent. The main towards having better amenities to encourage anglers to come here in greater numbers. I hope to repeat the 30 per cent increase next year.
Has the Parliamentary Secretary any proposals for utilising the freezing plant at Schull?
It has been a very contentious matter ever since Deputy Flanagan launched it. Proposals have been bandied about again and again for the use of that plant. I do not want to raise an old hare, but the difficulty is the plant should never have been sited where it is. It is there now, and it is very difficult to interest people in it, although we have made numerous attempts.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that he had plans for its utilisation.
That is true.
What plans?
There were various proposals from private interests, but, on examination of the structure, they did not elect to go any further.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary take the House into his confidence and give us some idea what they were?
I cannot.
Deputy Flanagan is here.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what it is intended to do about it now? Is it nothing?
Not nothing.
This is initiating a new debate.
It was raised in the debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary has closed the debate. This is initiating a new debate now.
It reminds me of another query raised by Deputy Murphy about Castletownbere. There is no reason why it should not be started inside the next month. If it is not, it will be the fault of Cork County Council.
What about the fishery research plant at Galway?
We were deprived of a site, due to the attitude of the Galway Harbour Board. They held us up for some time. We were guaranteed a site and then we were deprived of it. Negotiations have now opened for another site, and I hope to be able to say something about it in the near future.
Question: "That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration," put and declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 24th June, 1964.