I think the question was posed to the Minister by another Deputy last week as to whether there would be some person in the Government, either a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, who would take full responsibility for the fishing industry. I do not know what duties have been assigned to the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary. It is possible that he may be in charge of Fisheries. I think the fishermen of this country, both the sea fishermen and the inland fishermen, are entitled to be displeased with the treatment of this industry in recent years. Sometimes it is the responsibility of the Minister for Lands; for a time it was the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture; and sometimes it is given over entirely to a Parliamentary Secretary. I respectfully suggest to the Minister for Agriculture that he has enough on his plate in dealing with the vast problems of what I would call pure agriculture. I do not question his ability to administer and preside over either the Fisheries Section or the Department of Agriculture but I suggest that there is such great potential in the fishing industry, it is a full time job.
The two Programmes for Economic Expansion envisaged great things for this industry but the progress forecast certainly has not been achieved since the two Programmes were announced. Therefore, the Minister should say whether he will be in charge of the Fisheries Section as Minister for Agriculture or whether he will delegate this responsibility to his Parliamentary Secretary, because, again let me stress it, this is a full-time job and I think it is due to the fishermen, inland and sea, that there should be somebody with full-time responsibility in charge of the Section.
In his speech the Minister seemed optimistic about the fishing industry. He seemed particularly optimistic with regard to the sea fisheries. The White Paper published in April, 1962, envisaged rapid and effective expansion and stated that the fishing industry would contribute to a greater degree to the expansion of the economy. To say the least of it, this has not happened. We were furnished in 1964 with a Progress Report on the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. At page 44, in which there is a table showing the landings of sea and shell-fish from 1960 to 1964, there is evidence pointing to a decline in landings and, of course, consequently in the sea fishing industry.
This must be disturbing because we have always regarded the fishing industry as having great potential. Apparently that potential has not been exploited. The table on page 44 of the Progress Report on the Second Programme shows that the value of landings of sea and shell-fish in the years 1960 to 1964 dropped somewhat. It seems to me, therefore, a greater effort must be made by the Minister for Agriculture or whoever will be in exclusive control of the fishing industry.
The aim of the Second Programme was that the landings of sea fish should be doubled between 1960 and 1970. We find that the landings of fish between 1960 and 1964 have fallen and therefore it seems that the task between 1965 and 1970 is to treble the landings of sea and shell-fish. Whether we can achieve the targets set by the Second Programme is, to say the least, very questionable. The Minister referred— if he did not, the 1964 Progress Report did—to the big decrease or, as it is described, the dramatic drop, in the landings of herrings at Dunmore.
Most Members of the House who take an interest in sea fishing know the reason, or part of it, for the dramatic drop in the landings of herrings at Dunmore. Whether this problem in Dunmore will be resolved, I do not know. I am sure Members of the House will be pleased to hear some comment from the Minister as to whether it can be resolved. I do not know what effect it has had on the fishing industry generally but it appears from the Progress Report to which I have referred that the imports of canned fish have increased since 1964. I suggest the Minister should inquire into this and consider the desirability of cutting down imports of canned fish instead of allowing them to increase as they did in 1964.
I should like to know from the Minister—this would be a good criterion as to the success of the aims of the Second Programme in regard to fisheries—how many people are engaged in sea fishing. I know it is difficult to say because of the fact that sea fishing is a seasonal occupation, that employment varies from season to season, but it would be revealing to the House and the country if the Minister could give us some idea of how many are getting an adequate livelihood all the year round from sea fishing.
The Minister referred in his speech to the training of boys as fishermen. I suggest we need greater detail as to what has happened since this training scheme was inaugurated, as to what response there has been and whether the Minister is satisfied with it. I know how difficult it is to induce boys to train as fishermen. It is an arduous occupation and, I suppose, if the money is not good, not too attractive. I suggest that if we are to attract boys into training as fishermen and fishermen into training as skippers, there will have to be greater inducement than there is at the moment.
Another problem I should like to refer to is the question of responsibility of the Minister or Bord Iascaigh Mhara for defective boats and engines that have been supplied to fishermen through the Board. I raise this matter because I have experience of a particular case. The suppliers of boats or engines have been approved by the Board but the evidence as I see it is that the Board take no steps to protect the boat owners when it has been shown that the boats are defective or, as in the case of which I have some knowledge, the engine is defective.
Bord Iascaigh Mhara insist on repayments for the purchase of engines or boats but the fisherman seems to have no protection if he discovers after a short time that the engine or boat which he got through loan from the Board is defective. I brought one case to the notice of the Board and the Fisheries Section, which was under the Department of Lands then. The unfortunate fisherman had no redress. His engine was proved to be defective but the Board did not seem to mind. They told him it was a matter between him and the suppliers of manufacturers.
I do not think that is good enough. This boat owner—I am sure it has happened in other cases—was left to battle out his dispute with the suppliers —I cannot remember their names— who had been approved by Bord Iascaigh Mhara, or the Minister, or both. If that is so and if the Board advanced the money for the purchase of the engine or boat, I submit they have a responsibility to protect the boat owner who finds himself saddled with a defective boat or engine.
One of the great complaints of the fishermen down the years has been that their boats have not been big enough to enable them to fish beyond what is regarded as the inshore fishery area. The Second Programme for Economic Expansion envisaged the provision of 65-foot boats. I wonder could the Minister tell us what progress is being made in regard to providing that type of boat and how many have been built over the past few years. It must also be obvious that many of these bigger and, indeed, better boats, will be needed by the fishermen in view of the new field of fishing that will be available from the final extension of the fishing limits. This new area will be in the main exclusive to Irish fishermen. It would be a pity if, for lack of proper boats, they could not exploit this new fishing ground. There was a recommendation in the White Paper in regard to the provision of more boats of 32-feet for shell fishing because it was believed that there was a good market for this type of fish. Perhaps, when the Minister is replying, he will also indicate what progress has been made in regard to the provision of the 32-foot boat in view of what has been said about the excellent market for shell-fish.
I do not think the Minister for Agriculture should ignore the development of the smaller harbours. Certain large harbours have been earmarked for major development and reconstruction schemes but it seems to me that many of the smaller harbours are being neglected. There are some in my own constituency. To mention one, there is Kilmore which has a good number of boats. The fishermen have been waiting for years to have the Kilmore Quay harbour put into proper condition. It is true that work is to be commenced on the reconstruction and development of Kilmore Quay harbour this summer. I suppose it is a good thing that it will start this year but the question has been discussed for many years by the Wexford County Council, the Board of Works and the Fisheries Section of the Department of Agriculture. These delays are most frustrating and annoying to the fishermen, to say the least, and they cannot afford to wait for a period of five to ten years in order to keep their boats in the water and obtain a decent living. Whilst I do not disagree with the development of places like Dunmore, Galway and other places which were mentioned, I believe the Minister should concern himself with the development and the maintenance—that is probably a matter for the county council—of the smaller harbours and concentrate on that aspect to a greater degree.
The Minister referred also to marketing. This is I suppose one of the biggest problems in regard to improving the fishing industry. I do not know whether it was stated by the Minister or whether it was said in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion that the effort must be made to improve distribution and encourage increased consumption. I do not know whether we have improved distribution. I know that steps have been taken to encourage the consumption of fish and there have been fish cooking competitions and displays. I was particularly attracted to a suggestion made by Deputy P. O'Donnell from Donegal. I did not get to see the Spring Show this year but Deputy O'Donnell mentioned the excellent stand which Irish Sea Fisheries had. He thought it would be a good idea if that were copied in provincial areas. If that is a worthwhile suggestion, the Minister should seriously consider it. It must be acknowledged that we are not a fish-eating country. There may be a particular reason for that, which I do not think needs to be mentioned, but a greater effort will have to be made to ensure that the fishermen will obtain a greater income from the consumption of fish here. There does not seem to be any dynamic effort being made to promote a sales campaign or to do any of the things recommended in the White Paper of April, 1962.
I would be interested to know if there are statistics available to show how we rate as fish consumers compared with other European countries. My belief is that we fall behind other countries in this regard but it would be interesting if the Minister had figures to give us. That sort of information would give us some idea about what our targets should be in trying to extend the home market.
The Minister or the White Paper also referred to assistance to retailers. It is difficult to see what effective assistance is being given. It is not the Minister's responsibility but I am aware of one retailer who was anxious to sell fish caught off the Wexford coast and the unfortunate man had to wait for months to get a telephone installed. I do not know whether or not there is liaison between Departments but I feel that if we wanted to increase consumption and distribution a retailer could have been facilitated in a small matter like that.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer and that is the subject-matter of a deputation we had to the Minister last week regarding monofilament nets. I can understand the anxiety of the Minister and his officials to protect the inland fisheries particularly in regard to salmon. I do not know whether we have a proper balance in respect of salmon fishing. It is alleged on the one side that the net fishermen are being allowed to get more than their share of salmon in the river estuaries and, on the other hand, it is alleged by net fishermen that the rod fishermen are getting an undue proportion of salmon. I do not pretend to know what the proper balance should be.
I appreciate the importance of the inland fisheries and I appreciate their importance to the tourist industry but, equally, I appreciate the importance of fishermen getting a decent livelihood. These monofilament nets have proved successful as far as the net fishermen are concerned, too successful, according to the Minister and those who are interested in rod fishing of salmon. The Minister recently took steps to ban the use of this monofilament net. I think neither he nor anybody else could say now whether he was right or wrong because these monofilament nets have been on trial for the past three or four months and I doubt if anybody can say what, if any, damage is being done to the rod fishermen of salmon rivers. The Minister suspended the ban on these nets for a period and allowed them to be used until, I think, last Monday when the net fishermen had to revert to the nets they had been using for years and years. I do not think net fishermen made any secret of the fact that they were doing fairly well with these nets but they have had many lean years for the past 15 or 20 years and so far as the estuary of the Slaney is concerned, they have had very lean years. Incidentally, they do not use these monofilament nets in the Slaney Estuary but in Dunmore they seem to be particularly successful.
The Minister has promised an inquiry to decide whether or not these nets should be used and that inquiry may be held in the autumn. It seems to me the decision has been more or less given. The Minister has expressed a view that these nets should not be used. I suggested to the Minister—I do not expect him to change his mind now —on that deputation that these nets should be allowed until the end of the season and then have the inquiry. Now it seems the monofilament net is condemned before the inquiry. There cannot be a proper assessment of the effect of the use of these nets over a period of two, three or four months and nobody could say what the effect on rod fishermen would be. That could be done, not in one season, but only over a number of seasons. The Minister, however, seems to have made up his mind but I must assure him that there will be hardship among net fishermen who believed, and who had evidence, that the monofilament net was good for them and would enable them to catch more salmon.
I urge the Minister to have the inquiry as soon as possible and I also ask him if there is any scheme of compensation, or if there could be one instituted, in his Department to compensate these net fishermen who went to some expense prior to the regulation being made in January in purchasing these monofilament nets. They cannot afford to spend £150 or £160 and then be told by any Minister in a regulation that these nets are banned.