Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 May 1970

Vol. 246 No. 12

Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1970: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This short Bill proposes to amend the Sea Fisheries Acts, 1952 to 1963, in two respects both of which relate to the borrowing powers of An Bord Iscaigh Mhara.

As Deputies are aware, one of the most important functions of the board is to provide grants and loans to fishermen for the purchase of fishing boats and gear. The grant element of this financial assistance to the fishing industry is made available to the board from the Fisheries Vote each year and is not affected in any way by this Bill. The board's funds from which it gives the loan assistance are, however, derived from borrowings by the board from the Central Fund under the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Acts. The first of these Acts in 1952 limited the advances to the board from the Central Fund to an aggregate of £500,000 but as time went on it became clear that this limit was not high enough. The figure was, therefore, increased to £1,000,000 by an amending Act in 1956 and to the present figure of £3,000,000 by an amending Act in 1959. These borrowings are repayable by the board in half-yearly instalments over a period of 20 years with interest, the funds to enable the board to make these repayments being obtained under the terms of the board's loan agreements with the purchasers of the fishing vessels who, of course, have to repay their loans to the board.

The limits which have been put on the board's borrowings from the Central Fund relate to the aggregate of these borrowings since the board was established and are unrealistic to the extent that they do not take account of the amounts repaid by the board to the Exchequer half-yearly or the amounts written-off as irrecoverable in those particular cases over the years where the board in turn has been unable to recover from boat owners.

The position has now been reached where the aggregate of the board's borrowings from the Central Fund amounts to £2,999,563 or for all practical purposes the limit of £3,000,000 set by the Acts, even though £1,281,328 has been repaid or written-off, leaving a net £1,718,235 still due. The level of borrowings required each year is now running at £500,000 and to enable the board to continue to operate its scheme of loans to fishermen it is necessary to amend the Acts to raise the upper limit of the borrowings from the Central Fund.

The new limit on Central Fund advances to the board proposed in section 1 of the Bill is £5,000,000 and will apply to the total amount of capital which stands repayable at any time. This should adequately cater for the board's loan requirements from the Central Fund for some years to come.

Apart from the board's powers of borrowing from the Central Fund, the board is also empowered by section 22 of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, to borrow temporarily from its bankers for current purposes with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries given after consultation with the Minister for Finance. This borrowing has been utilised only to provide temporary bank overdraft for amounts not exceeding £50,000. The opportunity is being taken in this Bill to extend these powers to permit the board to borrow for capital as well as for current purposes and to remove the restriction that these borrowings must only be short-term by arrangement with the board's bankers. The requirement that the borrowings must have Ministerial consent is, of course, being retained. The new flexibility in the source from which borrowings can be arranged, the period of the borrowings and the purpose to which the funds borrowed can be put, should give the board more freedom than heretofore in arranging its financial requirements. It is merely an enabling provision in case at some time in the future the wider powers contained in the amendment would come in useful to the board.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I rise to support this Bill. I have not got a great knowledge of the fishing industry having been born and reared a considerable distance from the coastline but I would want to support this or any other Bill that would improve the lot of our fishermen and provide more employment along the coast.

This is a simple Bill which provides extra money for Bord Iascaigh Mhara to develop the industry. When this board was established in the early 1950s the aim was to promote and develop the fishing industry. We have an opportunity here of examining the progress made by this board since its establishment. It is the board's function to finance the purchase of boats and gear and to provide some of the cost of the fish processing stations and the ice plants and to improve their equipment. The fact that the board will have more money at its disposal will mean that it can continue to improve this very valuable industry.

While, as I have said, I have not got a great knowledge of it, I have had many complaints from fishermen along the coast about the inadequacy of their gear and equipment. There is an urgent need to expand our fishing fleet and to provide supplies for the processing plants and for the home markets. I am informed that the supply is inadequate to keep the two fishmeal factories going. I do not know if this is correct. If we can improve the supply of fish there will be extra employment for people who are in need of it. It is necessary in modern times to equip with the most modern boats and gear the fishermen who are earning their living at the difficult task of taking boats out to sea to fish in all conditions.

I would be in favour of giving more control to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I would certainly be inclined to give them full powers as far as the marketing of fish and the inspection of fish is concerned. Recently in my own area an inspector from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries inspected the street traders and one man in my home town was prosecuted under the handling, storage and transport regulations of 1967. If I am in order, I should like to suggest to the Minister that the powers of this board should be extended in order to enable them to carry out such inspections as far as fish is concerned. This was a man who has been a trader for years and years and his parents before him were street traders. He was prosecuted under the Act I understand for not having the fish in a proper temperature. The local authority inspector informed me, when I discussed this matter with him, that as far as hygiene was concerned this man would be rated as the best in the county. As a result of that prosecution and the publicity it received that trader lost some contracts and markets because people were suspicious. I cannot see any liaison between the two authorities. There exists great confusion among street traders. I was rather amazed when I investigated this to find that the inspector who prosecuted this man was engaged in the same business in another town in the county. I found this unbelievable. I am also informed that the premises which he occupies are not anything like up to the standard in hygiene as those of the man who was prosecuted. Where there is so much overlapping with an inspector from the Department of Agriculure and Fisheries and an inspector from the local authority inspecting different complaints there must be confusion. I should like to see these matters completely transferred to the board who should be in full control.

In 1969, the latest date for which figures are available, our fish exports amounted to £3½ million. It is also estimated that we landed £3 million worth of fish in the same year. If we landed this amount I cannot understand how we exported £3½ million worth of fish; it is difficult to reconcile both figures. There is a tremendous incentive to increase and improve our fishing fleet. When we discuss the fishing industry we must realise that last year it contributed £6 million to the national economy. We are an island with a large coastline. There is no doubt that this house has paid much lip-service to the plight of people in the west of Ireland, particularly along the seaboard. By expanding the fishing industry the employment created would be worthwhile and would be a major factor in any "Save the West" campaign. We have only scratched the surface in this matter and we should seriously consider methods by which we might increase the £6 million figure already achieved by this industry.

Home consumption of fish has increased by 50 per cent since 1963 and this is due to the promotional drive and advertising campaign conducted by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. People are becoming more aware of the value of fish on menus and this applies particu and elsewhere—is such that they are larly to our tourists. In a report on west Donegal published by An Foras Talúntais it is reported that on a 100-acre farm in that area a farmer was earning approximately £300 a year or £6 a week. Here is a case where we could develop and extend the fishing industry in order to provide an additional income for those who are existing on such a miserable sum.

I understand that the larger boats are approximately 75 feet in length and that it costs approximately £60,000 to purchase and equip such a boat. I have a limited knowledge of this and I am open to correction on the matter. This is a colossal figure but I am informed that in ten years this boat, properly manned and controlled, can clear this debt. I find it difficult to understand that a boat of this size could make such an amount of money and I should like clarification from the Minister. I have seen a report from An Bord Iascaigh Mhara that a fisherman using such a boat would have the earning capacity of a farmer having 250 acres of the best land but this I cannot accept.

I have had many complaints from fishermen in regard to landing facilities and I should like the Minister to inform the House of the position of our fishing industry when we enter the EEC. What happens in the matter of our territorial waters because it appears to me that unless a decision is taken this will be a "free for all"? Is the Minister satisfied that we can compete with European trawlers?

In a report issued by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on Irish Agriculture and Fisheries in the EEC it is stated:

It is proposed that member States should ensure equal conditions of access to, and exploitation of, the fishing grounds situated in maritime waters under their jurisdiction. Exceptionally, access to certain fishing areas may be restricted to the local coastal population where the latter is mainly dependent on coastal fishing.

This is very vague and I should like clarification from the Minister when he is replying. I propose to leave details to people from this side of the House who are more conversant with the fishing industry. We are supporting this Bill, as we are prepared to support any Bill that will provide better conditions for those engaged in the fishing industry.

In the unavoidable absence of Deputy Kavanagh, the Labour Party spokesman on fisheries, I should like to welcome this Bill. Rather like Deputy Creed, I do not think there is a full appreciation among the general public of the contribution made by the fishing industry to our gross national product. Taking into account the full-time and part-time employees in the fishing industry and also those engaged in the ancillary industries, there are between 5,500 and 6,000 people involved in the industry generally.

Having regard to the tremendous fishing catches last year, and I refer in particular to the herring catches, it is true to say that this has now developed as a major growth industry. We regard the fishing industry as one having tremendous potential and greater capacity for growth than is currently being exploited by the Government or An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

The growth has been encouraging and it has benefited the nation. We take pride in this spectacle of men in their twenties and thirties taking upon themselves this capital investment of some £60,000 for the 75-foot trawler, on a ten-year repayment basis. They are doing this competently and this too is something in which we can take pride. It is the function of this House to provide sufficient money to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to make sure that the livelihood of these men is fully protected and that their standard of living, like that of every other section, will improve. Not only have fishermen taken their courage in their hands in recent years, in terms of this capital investment, with State assistance, but they have increased their expertise considerably in the last half decade. Their competence in handling the Danish herring gear—this applies to fishermen I have met in the south, in my own constituency in Dún Laoghaire well up if not on top of the European leaders in the handling of this gear. This too is a matter of pride and should be recorded here.

While welcoming this necessary and valuable contribution to the fishing industry it should be pointed out that we need many more hundreds of full-time, fully trained fishermen around our coasts. We require a more expanded and more sophisticated training scheme for fishermen which would provide them with a broader and more varied training. From my trade union involvement with the industry I can say that the existing scheme has a great deal to commend it but it could be developed even further. Since there are now some 1,700 to 2,000 full-time fishermen employed in the industry, some of them working for skippers or some in general contract work, there is need for a statutory employment protection measure to give full-time fishermen protection. Possibly this could be evolved in the form of a joint industrial council which would cover conditions of employment in this growing industry. This has been done in all the European States and it is time that we began to plan ahead so that every fisherman, whether he is an employee of a skipper or is engaged otherwise in the industry, will have full protection and will not in any way be exploited. This is absolutely essential for the future development of the industry.

I also welcome the increased home consumption of fish. Deputy Creed pointed out that there has been a 50 per cent growth in domestic consumption since 1953. One point that I would stress, and to which I will return later, is that fish must be sold at prices which the housewife can afford. Fishermen too are entitled to vastly more than they get on the pier for their catches, particularly when one bears in mind the vast gulf that exists between retail prices and the prices offered to fishermen. Likewise there is a need for the Government to develop, in conjunction with An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, greater and more remunerative exports in the industry. Certainly it is encouraging to learn that the industry now is worth £3½ million per year. This is a matter of congratulation to the industry, to the board and to the Government but if we are to have further capital investment—it is £5 million now—we must make every effort to increase exports as a matter of urgency. The results, as I say, have been encouraging so far and I have no doubt they will continue that way.

There is also a need to provide greater assistance than is being provided at present in regard to the provision of an effective and modern fleet of whole-time research vessels. There is not much point in pumping capital into the industry in such magnitude if one forgets the basic infrastructure of research necessary in the industry. For example, the French have almost every wreck around their coast fully charted so that no trawler will ever get involved with one. They have sophisticated fishery research vessels as other European countries have. While I appreciate that their resources are vastly greater than ours, nevertheless a good deal more work could be done in this regard to the benefit of fishermen and the State. I should like to see, therefore, greater co-ordination between the State Departments concerned and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. It sometimes seems that people do not realise that the seas represent 71 per cent of the total globe and that we, living on an island, have enormous wealth surrounding us. Therefore the research services are absolutely vital to the progress of the industry and they have been tragically neglected by successive Governments down through the years. We have a unique opportunity in this country of developing research work in our fisheries and maritime industries generally to the continuing development needed in this regard. There were discussions held in the marine research centre regarding various Government proposals and so on and it is time now that these were elaborated on more fully by the Government.

I should like to point out to the former Minister for Defence in his new capacity as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries that the Government must come to grips with the problem of adequately protecting our territorial waters. European experience has shown that there is no great problem involved in obtaining sufficient equipment for fishery protection despite all the hoo-ha-ing which has gone on in the Department of Defence in relation to the new fishery protection vessels ordered by the State. I have no doubt that the Minister will give us some information about this when he is replying but I do want to point out to him that the matter should be settled once and for all otherwise the credibility gap of the Government in relation to this matter as it is in relation to other matters will become even wider.

In the past half decade Dún Laoghaire has developed as a fishing port.

Thanks to the Fianna Fáil Party out there.

Deputy Andrews was elected in 1965 and I shall trace the records from then.

I am totally responsible for the increase in the fishing industry there.

I admire the Deputy's utter modesty.

The Deputy is trying to cash in on it.

I am quite sure that Deputy Andrews in his new post as Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence will exercise his undoubted talents to speed up fishery protection for the 14 trawlers operating from Dún Laoghaire.

Action is being taken.

I am sure the trawlermen will fire a welcoming shot across his bows when next they get protection from the Department.

In 1965 the total value of sea fish landings in the Dún Laoghaire port area averaged £34,000; in 1967 it averaged £55,000; in 1968 it averaged £104,000 and in 1969 it averaged £123,000. The port of Dún Laoghaire with its 14 trawlers operated by 60 men was 13th in the league table of large ports in 1966; in 1967 it was ninth; in 1968 it was fifth and in 1969 it was sixth. When one takes into account ports such as Dunmore East, Killybegs, Castletownbere and Howth the fishermen at Dún Laoghaire are worthy of congratulation. In the short time I have been a public representative I have noticed that there is a new community spirit and a new outlook for the fishing industry in the area. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries will use their undoubted power within the Government to develop even further the facilities at the port itself. Dún Laoghaire can be classified as being the second or third largest landing area for white fish landings and this is a considerable achievement because one must remember that some of the trawlers go to Dunmore East for the herring season and their catches are credited to that port.

I want to make a few harsh comments about domestic fish consumption. Let me address a remark to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Meat has entered the super luxury commodity category. Many people in this country, ironically a country of rich agricultural produce, can only afford to eat meat on two or three days a week. We should, therefore, welcome the increased consumption of fish. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should be thanked for its marketing promotional efforts. I think these efforts should be increased, because at the rate the price of meat is going up, fish is likely to become a viable substitute.

Fish is worthy of much greater support by ordinary people. Low consumption may be due to the fact that fish is a very expensive commodity at certain times of the year. Indeed, the price of fish is sometimes nothing short of a national scandal. There is no reason why the collective energies of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Fair Trade Commission should not be bent towards coping with this situation. It is time someone got to grips with the rings in operation here.

Hear, hear.

There is adequate machinery available to investigate the situation and such an investigation is long overdue. There is no reason why an island community like ours should have to pay an exorbitant price for fish while the fishermen get a miserable pittance for their catches. As a nation we do not eat very much cheese. That may be a matter of taste, but there is no reason why we should not consume a great deal more of our own fish. The Irish consumer has been extraordinarily tolerant and unduly passive where the price of fish is concerned. It is about time people protested and insisted on the Government acting. I urge the Minister to take action without delay.

The taxpayers' money is being provided to finance this industry. There is no good reason why the taxpayer should pay on the double. Now that we have had a change of Ministers we may have a change of policy, though the changing of Ministers very rarely leads to a change of policy in my experience at any rate. Better marketing arrangements should be made and the fishermen's co-operatives should have a bigger say in things generally. These co-operatives should have adequate representation on An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. So should the trade unions. The complaints made are not without foundation and the board should not be unduly sensitive about these complaints. Criticism is part of development, a very necessary part of it, and there should be a better atmosphere in all this.

The composition of the board needs reorganisation. Deputy Begley has a more intimate knowledge of the industry than I have. The Government are always talking about the role of democracy and about participation by the people. Why not have representatives elected to this board? Greater representation on the part of the fishermen would, I think, be helpful. I see nothing wrong with expanding the board. It is unduly small.

A closed shop.

I do not quite agree with Deputy Begley in that, but I certainly believe the trade unions should be represented on the board since we cater for the workers. A wider representation would lead to a better policy. Exports to Britain of fish, including shell fish, could be increased. It is dreadful to think that we have next door one of the largest European markets and our share in that market is as yet relatively small. In regard to the Common Market our prospects seem relatively good. It has been pointed out that fish consumption in the Common Market is about £1 million per day or some £360 million per year. When you contrast that with Ireland's total exports of £3.5 million per annum it is quite obvious that there is available in the Common Market a market for Irish fish exports which we should be now exploiting and which should be exploited with or without the Common Market or anticipation of various regulations which might come into effect if we finally become members of EEC. We should have been exploiting that market for the past ten years.

In that regard there is need for the Government to be more explicit and encourage Bord Iascaigh Mhara to introduce, as suggested in the 1969 annual report of the company, a licensing arrangement for exporters as a matter of urgency. The chairman, Mr. Brendan O'Kelly, said this matter must be given immediate attention. I subscribe to that view. The Department and BIM should take the bull by the horns and insist that that work is undertaken as a matter of urgency.

Since this is the first occasion on which we have got an opportunity of discussing Bord Iascaigh Mhara it is appropriate that we should pay tribute to the work done in this company by its late secretary. I am sure that Deputy Andrews because of his involvement in the House from 1965 onwards would also agree that Mr. Patrick Bowles made a very significant contribution to the emergence of a more dynamic BIM and made a major contribution to the growth of that industry. With these comments on behalf of the Labour Party I support this measure. I am doing so in the absence of Deputy Kavanagh who is unavoidably unable to act as our spokesman on this occasion.

I support this amending Bill because I regard it as a further investment in an industry the surface of which we are only scratching. We hear much about saving the west but that is becoming hackneyed and it is about time we had some action. This is a means by which we can help to solve many of the problems of the west because around our coasts we have a great harvest which need not be sown but merely reaped. If it pays foreigners to come to our shores and denude them of fish it should be profitable for us to fish. These foreigners are acting boldly at present, coming right up to our coasts and scooping up fish from our fishing grounds. Perhaps the present Minister's time in the Department of Defence was too short to enable him to launch some fishing protection boats but while it is all right to make this investment in fishing we must be able to protect it. The Minister was also associated with the Board of Works. You cannot send men to sea in boats without providing mooring places and the Board of Works provide piers and slips.

This does not arise in the present debate.

I want to ensure that this investment is not wiped out overnight because I have seen trawlers smashed to smithereens for want of protection. There is no use spending money on them unless you are prepared to protect them. We should ensure that foreigners do not interfere with our fishing. We have some great lobster grounds around our coasts and lobster is a tasty dish which commands a good price in France. People on the west coast have built up that industry.

I suggest to the Minister that he should ensure that winches are provided for the protection of these boats. In the event of a sudden storm where help is not available winches can be used to haul the boats to safety.

In the past fish has been regarded as something we had to eat on Fridays because we were not allowed meat. I think that situation is changing and there is a possibility that we shall be allowed to eat meat on Fridays. I do not think that having to eat fish should be regarded as a penance although, because of the way fish was cooked, it was a form of penance. I should like to compliment Bord Iascaigh Mhara for initiating fish cookery competitions. I thought there was a wonderful display of cooked fish at the finals held in Galway. We are all accustomed to having fish thrown on the pan and fried but it is the little trimmings that make it palatable. Now that we are to enter the Common Market where beef will cost 25s a pound we shall have to think in terms of eating fish. This prospect need not deter us if we follow the example of the cookery that has been exhibited in the BIM competitions.

I should like An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to try to use their influence to have more fish on menus. We are inclined to think in terms of our own way of life, eating fish only now and then. On the west coast there is nothing but barren land. It is an historical fact that, at the time of the famine, people were driven from the inland parts of the country and came to the coast. That is why we have the congested area along the west coast of Galway. What the land failed to provide they got from the sea to keep them alive. There are only two arms of the economy in the west. One is tourism and the other is fishing. When we talk in terms of saving the west we must realise this.

On the question of training young fishermen, the part played by the city of Galway vocational school is to be highly commended. Captain Wooley has done great work in providing young men to go down to the sea in ships. I wonder are we going far enough? We should also know what protection will be provided for our fishing industry and for our boats, for our piers and slips and harbours. People are calling out for boats and for protection for them. I should like the Minister to use his influence to expedite the provision of these amenities. Two days before the last general election there was a famous document floating around West Galway promising £300,000 for the Rossaviel pier and for the protection of the harbour.

I do not see how we can discuss piers. That would be a matter for the Estimate.

If we are going to invest money we must protect that investment.

It does not arise on this Bill.

I agree, but this promise has not been mentioned since. More will be heard about it in the future. The sea is not like the land. It can take a long time to recover from an accident that happens at sea. The sea has moods and can wreck a whole industry overnight. That is why I say if you invest you must protect your investment.

This is a subject in which most of us are deeply interested. I should like to join with those Members of the House who paid tribute to the memory to the late secretary of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Mr. Patrick Bowles. I knew him and I had quite a number of dealings with him. He was a selfless servant and I should like to take this opportunity of conveying my sympathy to his widow and family on their loss.

The sum of £5 million now being sought in this Bill is a clear indication of the progress that has been made in the Irish fishing fleet. This is a magnificent tribute to the board and it is an equally magnificent tribute to the young men who are placing their faith in the sea, and it is a faith well placed. As somebody said, we are only now beginning to realise the tremendous possibilities in the seas around this island country of ours. I am deeply interested in this subject. I come from a seaboard constituency. I was involved in this development in a small way at first, in a small fishing fleet which has developed from four trawlers to 14 in the space of five years. This can be taken as an example of the progress being made in this field.

This progress is being recognised by young men. The trawler fleet at Dún Laoghaire, if I may be parochial for a moment, is made up of men between the ages of 25 and 50. As I say, they have faith in the sea. If young men of the calibre and quality I am speaking of recognise the great possibilities of this industry then there is a great future for it. The reawakening of this interest in our sea fisheries is a most exciting development. We are perhaps only beginning to realise this, but it is very important that we do realise it.

There is one matter which I should like to bring to the Minister's attention, that is, the exclusivity of our fishing rights. I would hope that when we are negotiating our entry into the EEC our negotiating team will stick very rigidly to the idea that we do not want in any way to erode our right to our own fisheries. I hope they will maintain absolutely that we, and we only, are entitled to fish within the limits laid down by various international conventions.

The question of fishery protection may just come in under this Bill. I would hope that these new vessels intended for our fishery fleet will be introduced as a matter of urgency. Mention was made in the House of fish rings. One might ask a number of questions. Are fishermen getting a fair price for their catch? Are housewives being overcharged? Are they being asked to pay too much for the fish they are buying? If so, who is responsible? In my opinion, the fish rings are responsible. The Irish housewife should not be asked to pay as much as she is now paying for fish. These are matters which the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries might deal with now or at least have examined.

I would also ask the Minister to consider the possibility of designating Dún Laoghaire a major sea fisheries port in view of the fantastic success story of the existing trawler fleet. The port is near the city of Dublin and will not damage in any fashion other major sea ports. This is a growing industry: it may have been neglected over the years. Being a growing industry, there is need for an extra major sea fisheries port. I am well aware that Howth is just across the bay but there is no reason why both harbours cannot exist together.

The Dún Laoghaire trawlermen live in the locality. It is unfair to expect them to call in at Howth and then to have to head right across the bay for home. We are now sixth in the national league so far as the cash value of the fishing catch is concerned. Sixty men are employed on 14 trawlers. It is a record of which the trawler fishermen of Dún Laoghaire have a right to be proud.

I would also ask the Minister to contact his colleague, the Minister for Defence, about an ice plant which is badly needed at Dún Laoghaire. Already there is there a property belonging to the Department of Defence. A small ice plant could quite easily be erected there with no upset to the Department or their excellent operations there. It would be part of the continuing development of the fisheries success story at Dún Laoghaire.

The question arises as to why there should exist in this country the concept of fish, and fish only, on Friday. I do not know whether it is a helpful concept in relation to members of the Roman Catholic Church. With the greatest respect to the ecclesiastical authorities and the clergy, I suggest they might examine the possibility of doing away with the concept of fish only on Friday. The Irish people have it settled in their minds that they eat fish only on a Friday. Why should they not eat fish on the other days of the week? I would respectfully urge the ecclesiastical authorities to examine the possibility of instituting some sort of inquiry into the possibility of abandoning this concept.

We should consult Deputy P.J. Burke.

I certainly shall have a chat with Deputy Burke on the matter. I fear that this concept of which I have been speaking may be a bar to the exploitation of our fishing industry —perhaps a small bar. The matter might be examined to the advantage of all concerned. In continental countries, Roman Catholics eat whatever they care to eat on Friday. I do not think their immortal souls are in any way damaged by so doing.

The Deputy has a late vocation.

Fishing has now become a highly-skilled and highly-respected profession. There is a professional approach to every aspect of the business.

I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill and I commend An Bord Iascaigh Mhara for their continued progress. I should also like to congratulate Deputy James Gibbons on his new appointment as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and also Deputy Jackie Fahey on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to that Minister.

I welcome the Bill. Certainly, I had misgivings about the operations of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in the past. One would imagine they were drained of initiative and that they just kept going in some old way or another from day to day. With a new Minister, we may expect bigger and better things from An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. My experience is that in the past they had not the confidence of the Irish fishermen. If An Bord Iascaigh Mhara do not pull up their socks and meet and talk with the fishermen, rather than staying behind closed doors and keeping away from them, I shall have no hesitation in recommending that we have a second look at that body, the members of which are appointed by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries under the Sea Fisheries Acts, 1952 and 1963.

With a new Minister and a new Parliamentary Secretary in this Department I would expect a fresh approach as regards the composition of BIM. I have discussed the question with the fishermen. I feel, and they feel, that the fishermen should have a direct say on that board. They feel they should be enabled to elect their own representative to that board. The present appointment in Kerry is purely political: the man there was once a Fianna Fáil Deputy in this House. If we are to have confidence in this industry, the fishermen must have a say in the running of their own affairs. The first step towards that end would be an election on the lines of that to the farmers' council. The farmers' council folded-up afterwards but perhaps other forces were at work that were responsible for its folding-up. The fishermen around our coasts would welcome the opportunity of having their own elected representative on the board rather than a man appointed directly by the Minister.

At present there are in the region of 1,600 full-time fishermen and 3,756 part-time fishermen. I have no doubt the figures could be substantially increased if the right incentives were given to the people along the southwest and west coasts up to Donegal. During the past five years, according to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, in the region of 40 fishermen successfully completed a 16 weeks skippers' course. How many of those 40 fishermen have got trawlers after completing that course? The reason I ask that question is that in the third paragraph of his statement the Minister said:

As Deputies are aware one of the most important functions of the board is to provide grants and loans to fishermen for the purchase of fishing boats and gear.

That statement is not 100 per cent correct. How many grants and loans are given to individuals who are not fishermen at all? There are a number of people up and down the country getting boats who never went inside a boat in all their lives. That is entirely wrong. A professional gentleman in my town got a boat from An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. There was a case in Dublin of a fish buyer who got a boat from An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Is the extra money we are providing to be given to the fishermen or to men who never set eye on the sea at all?

The Minister should be more explicit in his statement to us about how this money will be spent. There is no mention of these people in this statement. I ask the Minister why. Are we providing an extra £3 million for people who never fished a day in their lives while the young men who went to the trouble of doing a skippers' course— some of them went to Scotland and left their wives and families behind them— at their own expense and lost a considerable amount of money in doing so are still waiting for boats? This is entirely wrong. The Minister, who is a new man in the job, should take a new look at it. I would appreciate very much if he would tell the House how many non-fishermen got boats from An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in the last five years and how many will get boats this year.

In the last five years, according to the Bord Iascaigh Mhara Report, 45 fishing boats were confiscated for arrears of payments. That is a staggering figure. It is true to say, and should be put on the record of this House, that these boats were sold for a song afterwards. Why did these arrears accrue? They accrued, in the first place, because An Bord Iascaigh Mhara failed to repair those trawlers when something went wrong with them, because they were in dry dock for three, four or five months waiting for some part of the engine or of the fishing gear to come from other countries. The arrears kept accumulating and the fishermen then were not able to clear them off. As the Minister is a new man in a job I would ask him, before any trawlers are confiscated in future, before a court order is thrown at a fisherman when he has no option except to give up the boat voluntarily rather than face High Court expenses in Dublin which could amount to £400 or £500, to have an inquiry into all the reasons why the boat is being confiscated. He will see from correspondence, which I am sure he has on many files, that there have been long delays as far as repairs were concerned and that that is how the arrears accumulated. I wonder if the same rigid policy is pursued towards the people who never set foot in a boat. These trawlers were taken from practical fishermen. The trawlers varied in size from 26 feet to 65 feet. How many of these trawlers are lying idle at the moment? How many are tied up in Arklow? How many are tied up at different piers around the country rotting away and will be given to the county registrar, the circuit court man, to sell them for a song by putting an advertisement in the newspaper?

Deputy Creed said the total landings of fish in this country in the year 1969 were in the region of £3 million worth. It is a pity he did not say that the value of the fish imported into this country in the year 1969 was £1,862,000. Why did we have to import almost £2 million worth of fish? Because An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have failed dismally to encourage the fishermen, to encourage young people into fishing. They have failed dismally to help the people who are in the industry. In the year 1969 we imported £1,862,000 worth of fish. In the year 1968 we imported £1,468,000 worth. In the year 1967 we imported £1,188,000 worth. In the year 1966 we imported £1,246,000 worth. One can see that from 1967 up to the present we have been importing more all the time. These are the facts I want to put to the Minister. I hope he will take a personal interest in this or that his Parliamentary Secretary will and that he will go down around the coast to the different piers and harbours from Donegal to Kerry, to Dunmore and up to Arklow, and meet the people and discuss their problems with them. I am sure he will learn far more from them than he would from An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

Some years ago there was a seminar in Galway organised by the county development teams. It was very successful. I would like to see more of these seminars organised by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara or the county development teams. Unfortunately Ireland, although well situated for investigating and exploiting the sea, is very much behind other countries so far as marine research is concerned. This cannot continue. I appeal to the Minister to see that we have more marine biologists. As far as I know University College, Galway, is the only place where there is some little experimental work done. There is one man involved in it. We should have many more marine biologists because indiscriminate fishing here and there around the coast will eventually lead to the destruction of the industry.

We have one vessel engaged in research at the moment—the Cú Feasa— which is a crock of a ship, to say the least of it. It is more often in dry dock than at sea. That is the only research being carried on by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara as far as our fishing grounds are concerned. Research facilities should be made available by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara or by the Department in order to have the grounds charted. It is very difficult for fishermen to go into new fishing grounds. They often lose all their fishing gear. These areas of the sea should be mapped out and I appeal to the Minister to get another vessel for marine research so that the fishing grounds off the coast of Ireland may be properly charted.

If the fishing industry is to survive we will have to ensure that improved facilities are provided for the graduation of marine scientists in this country. We must also ensure that facilities are provided within the framework of our universities for post-graduate research, pure and applied. All of these matters are extremely important. There are Spanish, French and Russian trawlers fishing up and down our coast; in some cases they come within two and a half miles of our coastline in broad daylight. Our fishing limits do not matter in the slightest to those people. We must have adequate fishery protection.

This does not arise in the debate. The Deputy will get a relevant opportunity on the Estimates.

The vessels are required to protect our fishing grounds. If we are providing money for our fisheries we must protect the fishing grounds. I merely mentioned it in passing.

The money will have to be provided in another Bill or in an Estimate.

I would ask the Minister to use his influence to get a smaller and faster vessel and so prevent these trawlers from indiscriminate fishing.

With regard to the shellfish industry there are several matters I would mention. First, we should limit the number of species of shellfish to those most suited to the economy of the area concerned. We should select a number of areas for the purpose of pilot schemes and we should promote co-operative movement wherever possible. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should give substantial grants to those co-operatives to develop the fishing resources.

In 1964, an American survey team came here and in their report they stated:

We are optimistic concerning the future of commercial fisheries of Ireland and confident that this industry can provide many more well-paying jobs than it now does. Fish and shellfish of many species are available in commercial abundance close to Ireland's shores. The quality of Irish fishery products could be the best in the world, because fishing grounds are only a few hours from the centres of population. Larger markets could be readily developed, for domestic consumption of fishery products is increasing and exports of quality products to Great Britain and Western Europe could be greatly expanded.

Yet in 1969 we imported almost £2 million worth of fish when we should have been exporting.

As far as fish buying is concerned fishermen are convinced that a racket is operating. This matter was mentioned by Deputies Andrews and Desmond and I shall repeat it. It is well known that cold storage facilities were set up by certain companies who got substantial State grants. These concerns purchase the fish when it is cheap and put it into cold storage. The moment the weather deteriorates and boats are unable to go to sea the fish is released from cold storage and sold at exorbitant prices. Sometimes when fishermen land their catches these large concerns can release fish on to the market and thereby force fishermen to cut their prices. I would appeal to the Minister to examine this problem and see if anything can be done to remedy the abuse that is occurring. These facilities are situated in key ports around the country—in Limerick, Dingle and in Cork.

I should like to refer also to the crab industry because this has been neglected completely. Stocks of crab are abundant along the west coast but no effort is being made to exploit them. In 1967 a few shellfish merchants made an effort to start this industry but did not succeed in getting it off the ground. The market for live and freshly cooked crabs is limited but there is great demand for the extracted meat which is used in the preparation of crab paste or sold, frozen in packs, for hotel and home consumption. Perhaps the Minister might look into this matter and give the stimulus and necessary encouragement to get the project off the ground. At the moment the crabs are caught and thrown back into the sea and this is wasteful when we should be taking steps to expand this industry.

I should like to refer to the question of insurance of fishing vessels. It is very high at the moment and the extraordinary thing is that the insurance must be paid whether the trawler is at sea or is in dry dock. That brings me back to the point about arrears and the confiscation of boats. Perhaps the Minister could do something about the insurance of fishing vessels. I have not got the figure now but I know that it is very high. Perhaps the Minister could devise a scheme similar to the one operated in Canada where a figure of 1 per cent of the trawler's value is taken as a guideline. That is a very fair system. Perhaps the Minister would look at this system and see how it works and if it would work here. Perhaps it would not.

If the fishing industry is to survive we will have to have more communication between board officials and the fishermen. The type of communication I envisage is that the board officials would chat with the fishermen about their problems. I remember coming to Dublin in 1966 with a group of fishermen who had some complaint about boats being confiscated and Mr. O'Kelly refused to see the deputation because I was with them. I was not a TD at the time but just a local councillor and the men wanted me along as their spokesman. It was a bit small of the chairman not to see the fishermen just because I was with them. This could happen in any locality. It just happened to be Dingle then but it could be Galway or Dunmore or some other place. Mr. O'Kelly should be big enough to get out of his soft chair and discuss problems with local people. I know the Minister has met several deputations and thought nothing of doing so.

The type of attitude I am criticising has crept in and various officials suffer from it. Perhaps the Ministers and others did not know that this type of thing was going on. It is in a way a small thing but it is a big issue as far as the fishermen are concerned. I would appeal for better public relations between the fishermen and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara because a vast potential exists and we could cut our balance of payments deficit by some £2 million if the industry is operated in the right way, but there will need to be goodwill on the board's side and on the fishermen's side and also an end will have to be put to the rackets and a stop put to exploitation of the housewives. The Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary should take a personal interest in this in order to bring about that education which is so vitally necessary. Both of them are midland men, they do not belong to the coast and therefore have not got the fisherman's tradition. The fishermen are a great bunch of men; there may be a few thorny ones among them but then there are thorny people in every section of life. They should discuss the fishermen's problems with them and not take the picture as presented by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara because it is very far from the truth.

I merely want to interject a thought into this debate and that is the importance of ensuring that in our territorial waters certain types of pollution will not occur. There has been a tendency for other countries to dump dangerous materials in the sea and particularly in the Irish Sea. This is an aspect which should be looked at and I do not think there is any need for me to elaborate on it.

I would support Deputy de Valera in his brief reference to this very big problem of pollution. No money should be spared in trying to cope with this problem because it is impossible to assess in money terms the amount of damage that could be done if it were allowed continue. We have been fortunate in the past that we did not have this problem but in recent times it has been growing and it can become very big.

As I am what you might call an "inlander" I cannot claim to have the expert knowledge that Deputy Begley has about the fishing industry. It is quite evident from what he has said that he has had considerable experience of the whole industry. It is true that there is some coastline in my constituency of East Mayo, at Killala and Ballycastle and when I represented the old North Mayo region it extended to Achill, Erris, Blacksod Bay, Portacloy, Porturlin and so on, and during that time I had many discussions with fishermen. I must admit I had to learn from them and I feel that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Gibbons, and his Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Fahey, will find themselves in much the same position as that in which I found myself, because they too are inlanders and would not have the experience that a Deputy like Deputy Begley would have. I hope that they will familiarise themselves as quickly as possible with the difficulties and problems of this industry.

I join with Deputy Begley in his criticism of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I have not had many personal dealings with them as a public representative but I have heard criticisms expressed of the board by reputable businessmen who had dealings with them, people who would not criticise just for the sake of criticism. They are people who have been engaged in a big way in the fishing industry. They told me that they were far from happy about the people at the top in An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

It has been said by people who put the fishing industry before petty jealousies that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara needs to be completely cleaned up at top level. Although An Bord Iascaigh Mhara has made some progress it has been very slow. The board stands condemned in my opinion for allowing, according to Deputy Begley, £2 million worth of fish to be imported every year. It is extraordinary that an island such as this which has had its freedom for over 50 years is still importing fish and, far from the figure decreasing, it is increasing every year. Surely no sensible person would suggest that people here would buy foreign products in preference to our own native products.

I know of some people who wanted An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to help them provide fishing boats. They wanted to meet a member of the board in order to discuss the proposals—I heard their proposals and I thought they were good and sound—and remove some of the obstacles. These men had the necessary deposits and they had some experience in fishing but every time they tried to make an appointment to see a member of the board the excuse was given that no appointment could be made because no one was sure where Mr. So-and-So would be on a particular day. This is not the way to do business. One needs to be on the ball so to speak. Certainly this type of behaviour will not further the interests of the industry.

As far as I know there is not one worthwhile fishing industry in operation along the whole of the Mayo coastline. In the days of British rule places such as Achill were prosperous little fishing areas. It has to be remembered that fishermen then did not have the modern boats or equipment that are available today. Yet they had wonderful catches which were sold locally and delivered by a horse-drawn cart. My late parents told me that the streets of Ballina used to be lined with carts loaded with fish. Of course, there was no refrigeration in those days but the fish were good and they were sold along the streets. In the same place today there are very few people engaged in the fishing industry. The main reason for this is the neglect of that industry in the region down through the years.

I know all about the progress at Killybegs. I can recall being there about 20 years ago when it was a little fishing village in the doldrums. It is now a prosperous village where the fishermen appear to be happy and contented. The prosperity of the Killybegs region has spread along the Donegal coastline whereas along the Mayo coastline, despite the promises made by Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries that something would be done, nothing has in fact been done.

At the time of the Famine, slips and piers were erected without any expert advice from engineers at places where they should never have been erected, where they constitute a hazard and a danger to fishermen. We have a great many advantages from the point of view of education and other things and it should not be beyond the power of an organisation like An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, or of a Minister of State, at the present time to establish in that region at least one or two major fishery centres so that the industry could be run on proper lines and with proper facilities. We have a tradition of fishing and young people should be encouraged to go into the fishing industry. In Killala a small effort has been made and I am proud that even that humble start has been made. Killala was a major fishing centre at one time. It was known as the Lacken fishing area. The engineering staffs in the county council and in the Board of Works got together and extended the piers. I have seen the work that was done and I believe it will bring certain benefits. But there is there again that niggardly approach—£20,000 or £30,000 invested by the State in something in which, in my opinion, £500,000 should be invested.

There is difficulty in bringing industry to the west. I appreciate the fact that successive Governments have introduced legislation in an effort to encourage industrialists to go to the west. The measure of success has been poor indeed. I can understand the nonsuccess because there is the problem of raw material. It has to be imported and brought down to the west and the manufactured article has to be sent all the way back again from the west. The position is quite different where the fishing industry is concerned. The fish are there in the sea. All that needs to be done is to catch them, handle them, process them and dispatch them in proper condition. The facilities are there. There is refrigeration and there is modern transport.

I believe there is no better way in which to save the west than by large-scale development of the fishing industry. Promises are not enough. There is a ready market available for fish. I believe there is a market available for at least £2 million worth, or more, where fish is concerned. We should never have to import fish. The market is there and if people could get regular supplies of fresh fish they would eat fish. Consumption would go up by 25 per cent or more. I would eat fish two or three days a week if I could get it in proper condition. It is not always easy to get. When one can get it it is not always of the highest quality. I agree with Deputy Begley that those engaged in the industry at the moment take advantage of glut periods; they buy cheaply and they store the fish and that fish is subsequently sold in time of scarcity at an exorbitant price. The Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary would want to examine into these things.

What are we doing about increasing sales? Every other commodity is heavily advertised in the Press, on radio and on television. We very rarely have any advertising in relation to fish. We are too backward. I would appeal to the Minister to get on to the sales side of this and try to get the message across on the various communications media.

I do not know who the people are on An Bord Iascaigh Mhara but I think the board needs shaking up. I am always sceptical about people appointed by Ministers. We have some experience of the kind of thing that happens at county council level. After an election every committee is filled by whatever Party secured the biggest return to the council. That means that very often sensible hardheaded people who would be an asset on such committees are excluded from them. I am not condemning the Minister's party; there are good men in Fianna Fáil as there are good men in every party. It strikes me that the reason why An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have fallen down on the job is that there are too many square pegs in round holes. I came into this House in 1951. I was out of it for a term. When I came in here first I spoke on lines similar to those on which I am speaking now. The progress made has been nothing like what it should have been if An Bord Iascaigh Mhara was being run on proper business lines. We have the situation today in which we are, in fact, importing more fish than we have done for a very, very long time.

Foreign trawlers have been coming here for many years. I am sure the protective vessels we have at present will continue to function. The fact that these foreign trawlers come proves beyond doubt that it is a profitable business for them, even though they must travel 500 or 1,000 miles to get here and pay their employees. They do not dispose of their catches here but must return to other countries for that purpose. Despite that, they continue to come here and fish along our coastline frequently without any fear of detection and perhaps get away with catches worth thousands of pounds. It is seldom they are caught fishing illegally and very often when they are, they get off very lightly in our courts. While I would not be free to discuss this at any length I think something should be done to increase the penalties in such cases.

Generally speaking, I agree with the terms of the Bill. Money is necessary for expansion. The Minister's short statement gave us a limited opportunity to express some points of view but these viewpoints have been expressed already and are on record in the Dáil Debates for many years. Year in, year out, Opposition Deputies have pleaded with successive Ministers to have something done to put this industry on a proper footing. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara stand condemned. They have not made the progress they should have made for a variety of reasons. I sincerely hope that we shall get better value for this additional money now being made available. Even if we have to do some rooting out and appoint better men at the top in BIM, the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary should set about doing this immediately.

Coming from a constituency with the longest coastline in the country I am naturally very interested in the development of our fisheries. This limited measure has our support. When we discuss State-sponsored bodies and their activities my views are reasonably well known. We are not getting enough information about these bodies. More information should be made available to the House. State-sponsored bodies are largely controlled by boards and we know the type of personnel on some of these boards. We know their qualifications for membership of such boards and it is accepted that strong party supporters —I do not like the term "hacks"— are often appointed to such posts. In the case of the present Government, for instance, a Taca man who has been very helpful to the organisation at election times and helps to develop it in between, is likely to be rewarded by membership of a board. Frequently, such a member has no knowledge of the activities of the board and his is a purely political appointment.

Previously, when I made a somewhat similar statement I was asked to name names. There is nobody present now to ask me to give names but on the previous occasion, although I did not like to do so, I was inclined to do so when I was asked because I believe in being specific and I do not like making general charges. However, anybody who gets the reports of the various State-sponsored bodies, of which we have many, and examines the membership of the boards and the qualifications of the members will find that a substantial percentage of them should not be on such boards. That brings me to a matter that I have argued in the past and that I hope will come up after the next general election. I suppose we shall have more information on the disbursements of State-sponsored bodies——

I must point out to the Deputy that the discussion is restricted to what is mentioned in the Bill and that the points the Deputy proposes to develop should more properly be developed on the Estimate.

With respect, I beg to differ. I think my remarks are quite appropriate.

Acting Chairman

The ruling of the Chair must take precedence over the Deputy's opinion.

I accept that but surely the personnel of the board is a matter appropriate to the discussion on a measure which seeks to give that board extra powers and functions?

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will permit me to say that the personnel of other boards may not be discussed. The Deputy must confine his remarks to the board referred to in the Bill and should not deal with the personnel of other State bodies.

It is usual in debates here to illustrate points. I do not like to quarrel with the ruling of the Chair as I am at all times anxious to comply with the rules of procedure here and, with respect, I think I am doing so now. When we are making public money available to a State body by the method of borrowing, as proposed here, I think we are entitled to comment on the type of people who will use that money because that, to a large extent, determines how the money will be used, whether it will be gainfully employed or whether some of it will be wasted due to the limitations of members of the board who are supposed to be in charge of the concern.

We must get more information. We must find out who is getting this money and we must be assured that the board is fairly and impartially administered. We must be assured that no political strings are being pulled with board members and that those who are appointed on a political basis are not rewarding those who appointed them by helping to get benefits for their political friends outside. We must be assured that such things cannot happen. Grave doubts exist at present. If we had the details that we as Deputies should get about the activities of this board, as well as the activities of other boards, we would be in a better position to make a factual appraisal of the activities of such bodies.

Having said that about the board and the membership of the board, I should like to move on to the executive of the board in question. I have had many dealings with them down through the years, as is natural for any representative of a constituency such as Cork South West. I find that the executive of the board measures up to my requirements. The chairman and the senior executive staff of the fishery board are capable men. They discharge their duties with reasonable efficiency. I am sure they would be impartial at all times if the board did not interfere.

Even though I am satisfied that they are doing their job reasonably well, undoubtedly there is room for improvement. I am grateful to the executive of the fishery board for the interest they have shown in south west Cork. We have had the chairman and the senior officers of the board down there on a number of occasions. They were very helpful indeed. I am quite satisfied that they have the interests of the fishermen at heart and I should like to acknowledge publicly that those officers played no small part in endeavouring to get the fish processing plant located in the Castletownbere district. I expect that plant will be erected there in the not too distant future. I should like to thank two senior members of the staff, without naming them, for the work and effort they put into this project and for the great help they gave. I know it will be a valuable asset down there.

Since the scope of this measure is so restricted the Acting Chairman might with some justification take me to task for mentioning harbour development.

On a point of order. With regard to this restriction, are Deputies not free to discuss the entire sea fishing industry on this Bill?

Acting Chairman

No. The Bill is a confined measure. It is an enabling Bill.

Is it not confined only to the work of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara which excludes inland fisheries only?

Acting Chairman

There is a little more to it than that.

On a further point of order. If this Bill provides money for the purchase of boats we must ensure that, if there are boats, there must be harbours into which they can go and we must therefore, I respectfully suggest, discuss the harbours. There is no use in buying a trawler, particularly one of the larger trawlers, for Athlone without discussing the method of bringing it to Athlone. Surely if we are going to buy boats and provide money in this House for the buying of boats we are entitled to discuss the berths in which the boats will be berthed?

Acting Chairman

There is no one querying that unless it be the Deputy himself.

I understood that was what Deputy Murphy said.

Acting Chairman

No. The Deputy is wrong and he is out of order as far as the Chair is concerned.

I am very glad to hear your ruling.

Acting Chairman

I wish to inform the Deputy that my ruling was quite clear. There are a few points on which I want to expand. One is that a discussion on other semi-State corporations is out of order.

Acting Chairman

The second is that the protection of our fisheries does not arise on this Bill.

Surely if we are providing money for them we must ensure that they are protected?

Acting Chairman

Another point is that a discussion on the provision of protective vessels is also out of order. The Bill is quite limited in its aims and therefore some of those general matters to which the Deputy referred may more properly be raised on the Estimate.

I assume then that to address ourselves to a discussion on harbours or harbour development is relevant. I apologise if I was responsible for getting you into this position of having a little crossfire with some Members on the left.

Acting Chairman

That is all right.

You must excuse me for anticipating a ruling from you that a discussion on harbour development would be out of order in view of your previous intervention in this discussion —to my mind, an unnecessary intervention. We must get the record straight. All my remarks up to this have been relevant.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy may discuss matters relevant to the Bill, not the ruling of the Chair. I want to point that out to the Deputy at the start.

We are agreed that a discussion on harbour development is relevant. Before you have harbour development you must get boats. We want detailed information from the Minister on the question of allocating boats. I believe every Deputy is entitled to get an up-to-date account of how this allocation system works, who are the successful applicants, and who are the unsuccessful applicants. The annual report gives no such information and because of that it is of little value. It is too general. There is no detail. Consequently, we do not know where we stand.

I want to refer to another question which I think is important. An individual succeeds in getting a substantial loan from the board to enable him to get a boat or, alternatively, the board provides one for him for a small contribution. In most cases the contribution so far as the value of the boat is concerned is reasonably low. He starts off fishing and he employs others to help him, who are known as share fishermen.

When public funds, through the board, are made available for the purchase of boats, there should be an obligation on the skipper of every such boat to make all his accounts available for inspection by his workers. They are shareholders. Their income is uncertain. It depends on the catch and the price for it. It has come to my notice that men are employed by skippers of boats purchased by public funds and, on a Friday or Saturday evening, these men each receive an envelope with money inside it but with no statement to show how the amount was assessed. It should be written into the regulations that every skipper should present a statement of his accounts; what the fish fetched, the expenses, the contribution towards the boat and every other relevant detail.

If skippers wish to keep from their workers details of their income then let them buy the boats completely from their own resources and hire the men on a weekly or daily basis. It may be asked why the crew do not seek this vital information. Some of them are afraid to do so lest they should be sacked. It should be a binding stipulation that all the members of the crew will receive this information without having to ask for it. I mentioned this matter three years ago and no action has been taken on it to date. I know of no other group of workers, who work on a co-operative basis, who have not access to the accounts. I do not say that anything is wrong. Possibly some of these men receive the correct amounts. However, justice must be seen to be done by giving them the details.

I come now to the question of harbour development. While it is true that the board have not funds at their disposal for harbour development I consider they should take much more interest in this work than they are now taking. An advisory body should make representations to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and to the Office of Public Works on matters that they consider warrant attention. The stretch of West Cork coastline from Kinsale to the Kenmare River is extensive. We have a number of what could be termed major harbours and a substantial number of very small ones. I appreciate the development work being carried out at Castletownbere but that is only one centre. We have numbers of others crying out for development. We have the harbour at Schull where I reside myself. Representations have been made to various Departments and through the county council for help towards the development of Schull harbour but nothing has happened so far. We should have some definite information on the availability of funds for the development of this harbour.

Let us not forget Crookhaven, Baltimore and Union Hall which was once a big fishing port and which has now declined somewhat due to lack of facilities. Let us not forget either, Portmacsherry, Kinsale and the many other smaller piers and slips in that region that require development. The board should act in an advisory capacity so far as the development of such harbours is concerned. When their agents and representatives go to meet fishermen it should be part of their duty to listen and to attend to representations concerning harbour and pier development works. At present that is deemed outside the scope of their activities. I think their officers would be competent to make a factual appraisal of the different places and to advise the Minister's Department on works which they consider essential.

I ask the new Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy James Gibbons, to address himself to this question. He comes from an inland county. Most people in charge of fisheries development so far have come from one inland county or another. Seldom if ever has a member from a maritime constituency been appointed. I wish the new Minister well in his new Department. I shall not dwell on the reasons for his change of office. We have had enough of that for the past few weeks. I respect his rights in his new Ministry. He may not have the local knowledge a person from a sea coast town would have of sea fishery development but Deputy James Gibbons is a scholar and I have no doubt he is willing to learn.

We are aware of the difficulty of raising money for port development and we appreciate that it must be phased over a number of years. We have never got from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries any kind of phasing out scheme. All the works are submitted to the Department at the same time. The Department issue letters saying they are receiving attention. There is a great deal of the time of public employees wasted making useless reports and asking for technical data. There should be a priority list drawn up so that we can say to people in the various districts: "There are three other harbours to be developed ahead of yours and it will be seven, eight or nine months before your harbour can possibly be attended to." We must be straightforward in our dealings with representative groups and sectors. There is no use trying to keep them on the long finger.

When the annual sum is made available the places that are not to get anything from it should be so informed. If it is unlikely that public funds will be made available for a number of years that information should be available. In this matter, as in others, our people would be understanding. They appreciate the high cost of these essential public works and they know that it is not possible to get all the money at once. Why not say then: "Our experts believe that a certain harbour must be developed in 1970-71. The next harbour for development is such a place and we are likely to commence there in 1972-73. So far as other works are concerned it will possibly be 1976, 1977 or 1978 before money will be available." That would be to the advantage of all concerned.

Any Deputy from a coastal constituency knows the difficulties of meeting people and groups from fishing centres and having to answer queries about the development of their particular slips and harbours without having the necessary information. Works should be listed. Priorities should be drawn up.

I want to emphasise that, while I know the Minister must view the matter on a national basis, he should not overlook the fact that the south west Cork coastal area is the premier fishing area. I say that without reflecting on Donegal, Dublin, or any other area. That area is not getting the financial consideration it is entitled to and I am asking the newly-appointed Minister, Deputy Gibbons, to bear that in mind. I am asking him to ensure that we will have information in the not too distant future on proposals for harbour development and the development of smaller piers and slipways.

There is a circular from his Department at present telling local authorities that the Department have a team now set up going to the various centres and reporting back later and that in the meantime no further information is available. I believe, from the information at my disposal, that that is another long finger tactic. I hope I am wrong because it would be a good thing to make such an appraisal and to establish a priority list but my unofficial information is that little or no move has been made so far as assessing the merits of the representations made for the development of different fishery sectors is concerned.

I will be forced to finish in three or four minutes and as I may not have an opportunity of speaking after Question Time—I believe the discussion will be postponed until next week——

Until the 20th Dáil.

Until the 20th Dáil, Deputy O'Leary tells me but that is unlikely. The Tánaiste is laughing. He is bound to laugh. That is unlikely. It will hardly be postponed until the 20th Dáil. I think the 19th Dáil will go a little longer. I do not know what the opinion of the Minister for Transport and Power is.

The methods of distributing fish here are most inefficient. I am surprised An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have not been able to devise more efficient methods to ensure that fish is made available to people in inland towns. I travel from Schull to Dublin and in the towns along the way, even some inland towns in County Cork, I am told that there is no fish available or that fish is available only in very limited quantities. The board should address themselves to that problem and try to ensure that all towns have adequate supplies of fish. In that way more demand will be created and it is reasonable to assume that those who catch the fish will get better prices. At present there is the outdated method of fish being transported to Dublin from Castletownbere and Schull, sold in the fish market here, and then put in a lorry and sent back to Cork and resold there. The report indicates that some of our public institutions in Cork are being supplied by Dublin merchants who brought the fish from Cork. Now the Taoiseach is living in a nice little fishing area in West Cork. He knows what I am talking about. He will get to know many of the fishermen who will be his neighbours and he will get to know the problems which exist— the problem of fish being caught in south west Cork, transported to Dublin at high cost and then going back to the Taoiseach's own city of Cork.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn