Vol. 249 No. 14
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £1,834,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1971, for salaries and expenses in connection with sea and inland fisheries, including sundry grants-in-aid.
The amount sought represents an increase of £510,400 on last year's figure, due primarily to the provision of £396,100 to enable repayment to be made to the Central Fund of advances made to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara which were issued by the board to fishermen for the purchase of boats and gear and were later written-off as irrecoverable in the board's accounts. Other factors in the overall increase include the erection of a new fishery school at an estimated cost of £80,000, an increase of £50,000 in the Grant-in-Aid to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara for administration and current development, an increase of £25,000 for inland fisheries development and an increase of £20,000 in the Grant-in-Aid to the Inland Fisheries Trust Incorporated. As against those increases, there is a reduction of £63,000 in the Grant-in-Aid to be given to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara for capital development.
The progress which has been evident in recent years in the development of our fishing industry is steadily continuing and there is a healthy air of optimism now running through the whole industry. In the year 1969 the value of landings of sea-fish and shellfish was just short of £3 million and exceeded by almost £600,000 the 1968 figure of £2,400,000 which had been an all-time record. A further assessment of the expansion achieved can be made against the corresponding figures of fish landing for 1960, 1961 and 1962 which were £1.6 million, £1.4 million and £1.5 million respectively.
Side by side with the growth in landings, there has been a substantial increase in the value of exports of fish of all kinds. During 1969 a record figure of over £3.5 million in exports was achieved representing an increase of 33 per cent on the previous year's figure and practically trebling the value of fishery exports in 1961.
For a full assessment of the contribution of fisheries to the national economy, account must also be taken of the income from angling tourism which is estimated to have exceeded £4 million in 1969. The total external income attributable to our fisheries, therefore, amounted to the sizeable figure of over £7.5 million during 1969.
The quantity of sea-fish, other than shellfish, landed rose from 836,000 cwt. in 1968 to the record figure of 1,075,000 cwt. in 1969. The exclusion of shellfish from that figure is because shellfish landings are recorded partly by weight and partly by number. The total value of landings, including shellfish, rose from £2,153,000 in 1967 by 11 per cent to £2,404,000 in 1968 and by a further 20 per cent to £2,996,000 in 1969. In 1969 all categories contributed to the increase and it is most gratifying to record that the 1969 herring catch at £784,000 was an all-time record and exceeded by as much as 57 per cent the previous record figure of £499,280 in 1967. Shellfish also once again contributed substantially to the fishermen's earnings and now account for 30 per cent of the value of our total landings of fish from the sea. In addition to herrings the particular varieties which contributed most to the gross value of landings in 1969 were lobster, plaice, cod, whiting, Dublin Bay prawns, haddock, crawfish, ray/ skate and periwinkles in that order.
As to trends in the current calendar year, I am pleased to say that for the first six months the quantity of sea fish, excluding shellfish, landed is over 30,000 cwt. greater than for the corresponding period of 1969 and the increase in value comes to over £140,000. The value of shellfish landings has also increased by over £100,000 in the same period. If this trend continues, there is no doubt but that we are facing another record year.
As I have mentioned, the value of our exports of fish in 1969 was over £3.5 million. Shellfish at £1,261,000 was the best money earner, followed closely by freshwater fish at £1,259,000 and by other sea-fish at £1,038,000. Of the latter figure herring exports alone accounted for £877,000. Here also the statistics that are so far available for 1970 are very gratifying. In the first seven months the value of exports of fish and fishery products at £2,474,000 is £329,600 or 15 per cent in excess of the figure for the corresponding period of 1969.
While Britain is the best customer for our fishery exports, substantial quantities are exported to the Continent, particularly to France. Germany and the Netherlands, and this augurs well for the future of the Irish sea-fishing industry when we become members of the EEC.
Many Deputies have from time to time expressed their disapproval of the substantial quantities of fish and fishery products which are imported into this country each year. I feel, however, that the criticism arises in large measure from a lack of appreciation of the full facts. The imports of fishery products in 1969 were valued at £1,863,000 but tinned salmon, sardines, et cetera, accounted for £863,000 of the total value. Fish preparations of various kinds accounted for £349,000 and smoked coley and tusk accounted for £185,000.
It is debatable whether these consumer products are really in competition with the sale of Irish fish: they are a different kind of product which we do not produce ourselves and, if they were not available in the shops, we could not assume that the housewife would purchase fresh or frozen Irish fish instead. Furthermore, there are stiff customs duties on the import of these products and at a time when the emphasis is so much on freeing of international trade it would be invidious for us to contemplate introducing additional import restrictions on these particular products. The only imports that could really have a depressing effect on the sale of Irish fish are imports of fresh or frozen fish such as plaice, sole, cod, et cetera, and since 1938 such imports are permitted only under licence. Licences for limited quantities are given only when home landings are insufficient to meet the market requirements.
For example, when the vast bulk of our trawler fleet goes herring fishing, thereby leaving a serious shortage of white fish on the home market, the position is created in which a prohibition of imports of controlled quantities could not be justified as otherwise we would be merely depriving the Irish consumer of white fish without any corresponding benefit to our fishing industry. On the contrary, it could seriously injure the industry because it would be unrealistic to expect that the home demand for white fish could be so flexible as to exist only when supplies are available: more likely the demand would suffer because of erratic supplies. The total value of these imports in 1969 was £117,000. At present the trawler fleet is herring fishing and because of this imports of white fish are permitted.
This situation of a country being an exporter and importer of fishery products is by no means unique largely because there are so many different varieties of fish and fishery products which are not available from home landings and domestic processing. All the leading European fish producing countries, with only one exception, are substantial importers as well as exporters of fish. The one exception is Iceland whose economy is entirely dependent on its fishing industry and whose population — and therefore its total home consumption of fish — are, in any event, so small.
It is the constant aim of my Department to strengthen considerably the facilities that exist for the training of personnel for the fishing industry. The temporary fishery school which was opened at Moville in April, 1968, is giving good results. With the assistance of local instructors and the co-operation of the Donegal Vocational Education Committee, two groups of some thirty boys from all parts of the country undergo each year at the school an intensive course of training in which they receive tuition in seamanship, navigation, netmending, cookery, woodwork, metalwork, first aid and general subjects. These boys subsequently complete their training at sea aboard selected fishing vessels. The boys are instructed and maintained free of charge while undergoing the course and receive an allowance which, I am glad to say, was increased from £3 to £4 per week with effect as from 1st July, 1970. In the last five years 176 boys have undergone the Department's course of training as fishermen but, as I have just mentioned, the intake into the course is now greatly intensified.
Organised training of this nature is, I feel, the only effective way of recruiting suitable personnel for the fishery industry and I am pressing ahead as quickly as possible with the provision of a permanent fishery school at Greencastle which will have facilities not only for training new recruits but also for the organisation of refresher and higher courses for qualified fishermen and potential skippers. This new school, for which £80,000 is provided in the Estimates, is being built for the Department by the National Building Agency. The work of designing the school has been completed and the agency is now to seek building tenders. All concerned are pressing ahead to have the school completed as speedily as possible and I fully expect it will be in operation during 1971. The facilities that will be available in the new school will be the best that can be found and I am confident that the school will prove worthy of the industry that it will serve. As, however, the future of the fishing industry depends more than anything else on the calibre of the men engaged in it, I would like to appeal to our school leaving boys to consider fishing as a career and I would exhort those who would like a fine, manly, adventurous and rewarding way of life to apply to the Fisheries Division of my Department for acceptance under the boys training scheme.
In addition to the scheme of training of young boys as fishermen, training courses to equip experienced fishermen to attain the standard necessary to qualify as skippers continue to be provided by my Department in co-operation with the Town of Galway Vocational Education Committee. Further, to cater for suitable applicants who cannot attend these courses, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara organises port courses at which fishermen can study for their Certificates of Competency without having to interrupt their normal fishing activities. In the last five years 172 fishermen were successful in obtaining Certificates of Competency under the Merchant Shipping Acts following on their participation in courses run by the Department and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.
As Deputies are aware, Fish Quality Regulations made by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries became operative from 1st April, 1968. I would like to compliment the vast majority of the fishermen and the fish merchants for their co-operation in implementing these regulations. They have shown that they realise that proper methods of handling, storage and transport of demersal fish are necessary to maintain highest possible quality and that quality is the keynote in expanding markets at home and abroad. However, the beneficial effects of their efforts will not be permitted to be negatived by the few people — and I am glad to say there are only a few— who do not yet appear to realise the importance of proper handling of fish. To the latter I would give a warning that they have now been given adequate time to adjust to the requirements of the new regulations and the full measure of the law is now being brought to bear on offenders. These regulations apply to fresh demersal fish whether intended for the home or export markets. I am at present examining the question of backing up these regulations with quality controls on exports of fish in processed form so that the quality image of our fish abroad— whether fresh or processed — will be further enhanced. The proposed export controls were discussed with exporters some time ago and a further meeting to finalise the matter with them will be arranged shortly.
Earlier I referred to increased landings of fish. As the landings continue to grow, additional processing outlets will be essential to ensure that the fishermen will receive a reasonable return for their catch. I am glad to say that considerable interest is being taken in the promotion of projects for the processing of fish. Several such projects based mainly on herring, mackerel and shellfish have been approved for State assistance and more are under consideration. A very satisfactory feature of a number of these proposals is the inclusion of substantial quantities of crabs in the raw material requirements. This is ensuring an increasingly good return to fishermen for a variety of shellfish which up to a year or two ago was not commercially exploited here except in a very small way.
We have now two fishmeal factories — one in Killybegs, County Donegal, and the other in Mornington, County Meath. The Killybegs factory has been in operation for many years and has proved its worth in the progress of the local fishing industry. The Mornington factory has been in operation only for little over a year and I would urge the fishermen on the east coast to ensure that the factory, which could be of such tremendous benefit to them, is kept adequately supplied with industrial fish. In particular, it provides a ready outlet for species such as sprats and sand eels for which the demand otherwise has been almost nonexistent. Investment by both private enterprise and the State in the various fish processing factories is an indication of confidence in an expanding industry and an assurance for fishermen that they can dispose of increased landings without difficulty.
An essential feature of the development programme which has been undertaken for the expansion of our fishing industry is the scientific work that has constantly to be carried out. Even with the fisheries that appear to come along each year as a matter of course, such as the herring fishery in the winter months, the cod fishery in the spring, the salmon fishery in the summer, thorough investigations into the stocks and the extent of recruitment are necessary to ensure that overfishing, which could wipe out a fishery, is not taking place. As we aim to expand our fisheries then we must also engage in exploratory fishing to locate new fishing grounds. Also, in regard to the varieties that lend themselves to fish farming, such as oysters and mussels, the scientific officers must endeavour to assist nature in obtaining greater reproduction and protection of the stocks so that increasing yields can be obtained from them. In this work our fishery scientists have at their disposal the two fishery research vessels "Cú Feasa" and "Cú na Mara". A modern fisheries research station and laboratory is planned to replace the existing more modest facilities so that scientific material obtained from the cruises of these vessels can be fully processed and assessed.
The grant-in-aid to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara for 1970-71 for administration and current development amounts to £400,000 and the grant-in-aid for capital development amounts to £300,000. The total of £700,000 is approximately at the level of the previous year's figure. As well as these grants-in-aid, repayable advances are made to the board out of the Central Fund mainly to enable the board to give loans to fishermen to assist them in the purchase of boats and gear. The total amount of these advances authorised for the current year is £390,000 which can be supplemented by the board ploughing back into the industry the sum of £110,000 from loan repayments by fishermen, thus enabling the board to utilise £500,000 for loan capital during 1970-71. In addition, it will be observed from the Estimates that a provision of £396,100 is made for the repayment of advances by the board to the Central Fund. This amount is required to wipe out the board's indebtedness to the Central Fund for the period up to 31st March, 1968, in relation to those cases where repayments of advances from the Central Fund were waived by the Minister for Finance following the writing-off in the board's accounts of similar amounts of bad debts. The figure does not relate to bad debts of any one year but to the accumulated amount of bad debts covering a number of years. The formal waiving of the repayments, which involves bringing the matter before the Dáil, is being effected at the request of the Comptroller and Auditor General so that a more realistic picture can be presented in the board's annual accounts.
Lest there should be any misconception as to the services provided by the board with the moneys voted to them in the Fisheries Vote and advanced to it from the Central Fund, I think it would be appropriate for me to outline what the board's general functions are at present and to go into some detail on the various services they provide. The board were brought into existence by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952 which sets out the board's general powers in very broad terms. The primary reason for the board's establishment was to take over the functions of the former Sea Fisheries Association and to assist in the improvement of all facets of the sea fishing industry. In their early years the board combined development work with some commercial operations by including active participation in fish marketing and fish processing with the provision of various advisory services and financial assistance. As the years went by it gradually became clear that a change of emphasis was called for and that some of the board's activities were no longer necessary. In April, 1962 a Government White Paper entitled "Programme of Sea Fisheries Development" set out the role that the board should have in the development of the industry in modern conditions. The White Paper recommended that the board should withdraw from marketing and processing of fish so as to enable them to concentrate more on their real role as a development body for the industry. This was gradually achieved and now the board's functions include the administration of a marine credit plan under which grants and loans are given for the purchase of fishing boats and gear; the provision of an advisory service to fishermen to improve fishing techniques and promote co-operation among fishermen; the development of a speedy system of inspection and repair of fishing vessels; the development of markets at home and abroad for fish and fishery products; the encouragement of private investment in worthwhile fish processing undertakings; the operation of three boatyards for the building and repair of fishing boats; and in more recent times the operation of ice-making plants at some fishing ports where such facilities are not provided by private enterprise.
In implementing the policy of achieving the development of all sectors of the industry, increasing emphasis had to be placed on encouraging enterprise in each sector and on the interdependence of the various sectors. There would be no point in increasing fish landings if the marketing structure could not cope with the increased supplies while on the other hand there would be little sense in setting up a sophisticated marketing system and developing market outlets, if supplies of fish were not being landed in sufficient quantities. Similarly the establishment of fish processing factories involved some coordination of activities not only in the catching of fish for supply to the factories but in the marketing of the finished products.
Taking the catching sector first, the board as I have already mentioned, provide, under the marine credit plan, grants and loans for the purchase of new fishing vessels and gear and loans for the purchase of secondhand vessels. The grants are usually 25 per cent of the cost price and the loans can be up to 70 per cent depending on the amount of the deposit that the purchaser of the vessel is able to put down. The loans are repayable over a 15 year period with interest on a subsidised rate of 4 per cent per annum. In addition, an incentive grant on a sliding scale up to 10 per cent is payable if the loan is repaid before the full 15 years allowed, the maximum of 10 per cent applying where the loan is repaid in under ten years. The demand for boats is still very buoyant and during the year ended 31st March, 1970 the board assisted Irish fishermen in acquiring 54 new and 24 secondhand vessels ranging in size from 26 feet to 100 feet in length. As 18 of the 24 secondhand vessels had previously been operated by other Irish fishermen, there was a net addition of 60 new and secondhand vessels to the Irish fleet during the year, excluding of course the small losses that arise from time to time through normal wastage. The total number of our vessels engaged in sea fishing was 1,911 at the end of 1969 of which 19 were over 75 gross tons, 51 between 50 and 75 tons, 140 between 25 to 50 tons, 60 between 10 and 25 tons and 585 smaller vessels. An examination of the vessel statistics shows that for a number of years prior to 1967 there was a decrease in the overall number of boats but this is attributable primarily to the reduction in the number of small craft such as row boats. The number of larger vessels of more than 50 tons, 70 feet and more, has increased almost five-fold in the past seven years. A notable increase has also taken place in the number of motor vessels under 10 tons in the fleet, due primarily to the large number of the 26-foot lobster fishing boats issued since 1965 under the board's marine credit plan. There is a steady stream of first-class applicants for boats and, as the figures I have quoted indicate, the tendency is for many of the experienced skippers to turn over to larger vessels.
The board are continuing to provide advice to fishermen on improved fishing techniques. Educational tours abroad are organised to enable fishermen to study the fishing methods of other countries and experts from abroad are also brought to this country so that now fishing skills can be demonstrated to our fishermen in their home ports and their existing methods perfected. The provision of technical advice and the employment of specialist fishing gear consultants are services which combine to increase the productivity of the fishermen. The aim of all these services is, of course, to reduce costs in relation to earnings; to increase the average return on capital invested in boats and gear; to increase the average volume of fish landed per vessel per year; and to ensure that the vessel fishes for as high a proportion of the time as possible. Special attention is given to the most efficient type of gear, and surveys of gear efficiency and comparative fishing gear trials are carried out particularly in relation to the catching of shellfish. Included in the board's activities in this general sector is resource development — not to be confused with scientific research which is not a function of the board. Several projects in the field of resource development have led to fishery development opportunities for the industry in industrial fishing and in the location and proper exploitation of shellfish stocks. It is in this general area that the closest possible co-operation must always exist between the board's advisory staff and the scientific and technical officers of my Department so that the fruits of scientific research conducted by the Department can be conveyed in practical terms to the working fisherman and that problems arising at that end of the chain can be communicated to the scientists for study with a view to their solution.
In the sphere of marketing, the board's programme is orientated towards winning for Irish fish and fishery products a greater share of consumer expenditure at home and abroad. A suitable marketing "mix" has been devised in which the main elements are promotion, advertising, consumer education, rationalisation of distribution and public relations on the home market; and, in regard to the export market the finding of remunerative outlets and assistance to fishery co-operatives, fish processors and other exporters in organising supplies to the available markets.
The substantial advertising and promotional campaign through the mass media costs £30,000 annually. The board's fish cookery advisory activities include hotels, institutions and guesthouses. Educational and promotional programmes are arranged through the schools, the Irish Countrywomen's Association and the defence forces and fish cookery competitions are attracting record entries. More than 130,000 schoolgirls have since 1962 gone through the National Fish Cookery Competition organised by the board in co-operation with a committee from the fishing industry. The board have also a fish cookery advisory service for housewives and another service — the Banqueting Advisory Service — which is designed to encourage the greater use of the plentiful varieties of fish at a wide range of social occasions has been extremely successful. All these efforts are playing their part in popularising fish as a regular item of diet now that the Friday abstinence has been abolished.
The net effect of these schemes is that domestic fish consumption has risen from 7.5 lb. per head in 1963 to 10.7 lb. per head in 1969. Although it is pleasing to be able to record this, it does not in any way call for complacency. There is still ample scope for further increases in fish consumption. The board are also encouraging an improvement in fish distribution throughout the country by the opening up of new markets in the hinterland of the main fishing ports. In this way developments have gone a long way towards remedying what had been a basic weakness in the marketing structure, namely, over-dependence on the Dublin market. That market will, of course, continue to be of importance because of the large centre of population it must serve, but it is also most desirable to develop an effective system of distribution to inland towns and villages.
The low level of fish consumption in inland areas, due to lack of proper fish distribution, presents a problem in any speedy effort to organise more effective distribution and the best that we can expect is that better distribution can be phased in line with gradual increases in fish consumption in those areas. In any effective marketing arrangement for fresh fish, one of the principal factors is improved fish quality and the icing of fish at all stages of distribution from the point of catching until it reaches the consumer. I have already mentioned fish quality regulations and I repeat the reference now only to illustrate how one aspect of policy inevitably ties in with others.
In the export field the board have initiated a market research programme to assist exporters in finding diversified market outlets, and an incentive grant scheme is in operation to encourage more visits abroad to tap export markets. The board have also produced an export market information bulletin to provide information on prices and trends abroad. As I have already mentioned, the results in the export field have been gratifying, the value of our exports of fish and fishery products being in excess of £3 million for the first time ever.
Before I conclude my remarks in relation to fish distribution and exports, I should like to pay special tribute to the leading role being played by fishermen's co-operatives in promoting the more rational distribution and export of fish. I am glad to say that with the assistance of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society Ltd. they have organised themselves on a national basis and have adopted the rules of the Federation of Irish Fishing Co-operatives. This is an encouraging step and I look forward to seeing the formation of well-managed co-operative societies at all our principal landing places and their affiliation to the central body. To this end provision has been made in the Grant-in-Aid to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara of a sum which will enable the board to assist the IAOS towards part of the cost of organisation and training of fishing co-operatives.
As Deputies are aware, fishery harbour projects, whether they relate to new works or to improvement of existing facilities at fishing ports and fish landing places, are usually promoted and sponsored by my Department. State contributions towards the cost of carrying out those works, including the full cost of constructing the major fishery harbours, are not provided for in the Vote for Fisheries but are met from the capital funds provided for that purpose in the Vote for Public Works and Buildings and in the Vote for Roinn na Gaeltachta when the works in question are situated in Gaeltacht areas. However, I should like to take this opportunity of explaining briefly how these works are arranged and of indicating how things are going at present.
Proposals for new fishery harbour works and improvements to existing fish landing place facilities, which are dealt with in my Department, emanate from various sources, for example from the Department themselves arising from inspections and surveys of fishing centres by officers of the Department and the recommendations made by the special survey teams set up by the Minister to make an appraisal of the facilities required to meet the needs of the fishing industry. They also arise from the examination of representations made by fishermen's associations, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, other fishery interests and, of course, by members of the Oireachtas and other public representatives.
The various proposals are investigated to ascertain whether new works, repairs or improvements are warranted to maintain the existing level of fish landings and to meet potential expansion and development in local fishing activity. In the course of these investigations, discussions and consultations take place with local fishermen and other fishery interests, the local authorities and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. When a prima facie case for improvements or new works at any particular centre has been established, my Department obtain from the Office of Public Works an engineering report and estimate of costs, on the basis of which an assessment is made as to the feasibility of the proposed works and whether actual or potential fishing activity locally would justify the costs involved.
To proceed with the works with the assistance of a State grant involves the approval of the Minister for Finance and the availability of funds in the capital programme. The balance of the cost not met by a State grant is sought by way of contribution from the local authority which are also usually expected to take over the works when completed and to undertake responsibility for their future maintenance. In the case of the major fishery harbours because of the magnitude of the cost involved, the costs are borne in full by Vote for Public Works and Buildings while ownership, management and future maintenance are vested in the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries under the Fishery Harbour Centres Act, 1968.
Now, as to works in progress or recently completed or contemplated, I would like to say a few words. First of all as to the major fishery harbours, the total estimated cost will be of the order of £4.5 million of which about £1 million has already been spent. The works at Dunmore East are expected to be completed in 1971, at Castletownbere in 1973 and at Killybegs in 1974. Major dredging work has been carried out at Howth and some preparatory work at Galway. The harbour centres at Killybegs and Castletownbere have been taken over by orders made under the 1968 Act with effect as from 10th November, 1969, and 1st April, 1970, respectively and are now under my control and management. As a result, the Commissioners of Public Works acting as my agent under the 1968 Act have set in motion the legal processes to acquire as a matter of urgency lands and rights which are vitally necessary to enable harbour construction and development works to be proceeded with at Castletownbere fishery harbour centre and are about to make similar arrangements in regard to Killybegs. I had hoped that it would have been possible to reach agreement with all of the land owners as to the appropriate compensation but in some cases the Commissioners of Public Works have not been able to achieve voluntary sales at agreed prices. It has been necessary, therefore, to invoke the powers of compulsory acquisition provided for in the Act so that the harbour works can be pushed ahead as quickly as possible.
As to improvement works at west coast ports and fish landing places the position is as follows:
For the purpose of preparing a specific and comprehensive programme of general fishery harbour works— outside of the major fishery harbour projects — special survey teams were set up in 1966 to make up-to-date appraisals of fishery ports and landing facilities required to meet the present and expected needs of the fishing industry on the west coast. Surveys have already been completed of the coasts of South Kerry, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal and, recently of County Clare. A survey of the coast of County Cork is in progress and this will be followed by a survey of north Kerry. The reports were examined and the Office of Public Works asked to furnish detailed engineering reports and estimates of costs of implementing the various improvement works recommended by the teams. Some of the improvement works have since been completed or are in progress or are about to be commenced. This work conforms to the Government's policy of western development under which special attention is being given to the provision of adequate fishery ports and landing facilities on the west coast. As announced in Dáil Éireann in May, 1969, it was decided to embark on a programme of fishery harbour improvement works for the entire area of the west coast from County Donegal to County Cork. The programme is in hands and as it develops it is estimated to involve an expenditure of some £200,000 per year for about five years.
In specific terms the position is as follows arising either from the survey teams' reports or from separate decisions:
Improvement works have been approved for Dingle, Cuas (Baile Mór Thoir) and Bealtra, County Kerry; Rossaveel, Cleggan, Emlaghmore, Roundstone, Furnais North, Coolacloy, Renvyle, Sruffaun, Sruthán Buí, Garafin and Glinsk, County Galway; Porturlin, Caladh Mhaghnuis, Blacksod Quay, Dooega and Portahaulia (Clare Island), County Mayo; and for Teelin, Port an Duin, Port an Ghlais, Scotnalinga, Ballysaggart, Magheraroarty, Moville, Ballyhoorisky and Portevlin (Fort Lenan), County Donegal. Harbour improvement works are at present in progress at Skerries and Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin; Kilmore Quay, County Wexford; Reen Pier, County Cork; Cromane, Fenit and Beale Strand, County Kerry; Kilronan, Béal Carra (Barrett's Quay), County Galway; Killala and Darby's Point, County Mayo; and at Poolawaddy and Rannagh, County Donegal. Approval has also been given to the carrying out of boring surveys as a requisite preliminary to improvement works proposed for Reen (Ballinskelligs), Portmagee and Cahirciveen, County Kerry; and at Burtonport, County Donegal. In addition navigation lights are being erected at Tullaghan Bay and Achill Sound, County Mayo, and approval has been given for the erection of navigation lights at Cora Pointe, Aran, County Galway; Bone Rock, Killala, County Mayo; Poolacheeny, County Sligo and in Owey Sound, County Donegal.
Improvements work in the fisheries interest were completed during the past year at Ballyoonan Quay, County Louth; Garnish, County Cork; Brandon Bay, Brandon Creek, Dooks, Counanna, Dooneen and Renard Point, County Kerry; Portach and Kilkieran, County Galway; Saleen and Portacloy, County Mayo; and at Burtonport (dredging), Portmore and Bunaniver, County Donegal.
Deputies will welcome the decision to provide a Decca navigation chain for the south-west, west and north coasts. I should explain that the Decca system is a very sophisticated navigation aid and has many special advantages for fishermen in the more accurate location of fishing grounds. The use of this system is already available to east and south coast fishermen from existing Decca transmitting stations abroad and most of our progressive skippers in these areas have been availing themselves of it. The extension of the system to the west and north coasts now proposed will ensure adequate coverage for the entire coastline and should result in a substantial increase in the earnings of our fishermen. Arrangements for the installation of the chain are at present being made with the Decca Navigation Company Ltd.
I should now like to refer to the implications for the fishing industry of Ireland's membership of an enlarged EEC. Practically all of our exports of fish and fishery products go to the UK and to the present member states of the Community. In an enlarged Community the conditions generally for the bulk of our fish export trade would be more favourable because we would be assured of free access and there would be valuable price supports. While we could expect increased imports of some species such as plaice and cod, our trade in fish and fishery products should on the whole be improved by EEC membership provided our production can be increased.
A common policy for fisheries for the present Community was agreed to by the EEC Council of Ministers last month and will come into force in February next. There are two main regulations, one on market organisation and the other on structural aspects.
The regulation on market organisation covers such aspects as the fixing of quality standards, the fixing of guide prices, market intervention or support purchases, the establishment of producer associations, the abolition of trade restrictions between member countries and provisions for a common customs tariff and other restrictions in the case of imports from non-member countries. The producer associations will play a prominent part in the marketing arrangements which are envisaged. Member states will be empowered to give aids for the establishment of these associations and the cost of this will be recouped from Community funds.
The regulation on structural aspects provides that each member State is to have free access to the fishery waters of all the members. In exceptional cases, where the local population is mainly dependent on coastal fishing, fishery areas can be restricted in their favour but any restrictions are to be limited to fishery waters within a three-mile zone seaward from the baseline and to a period of five years from the entry into force of the Community regulations. The common policy also provides that in the interests of conservation Community measures may be taken to restrict certain types of fishing in certain zones and at certain times. Provision is also made for Community financing of such projects as fisheries research, improvement of fishing fleets and the modernisation of storage and processing facilities.
The policy of free access to fishery waters is a matter of some considerable concern to us. Its adoption here would cause severe hardship for the inshore fishermen who depend almost entirely on landings from our own exclusive fishery waters. In addition, as a result of overfishing there could be very adverse effects on fish stocks in those waters.
This question of common access to fishery waters is being strongly pursued in the entry negotiations. It was raised by the Irish delegation at the first ministerial meeting between Ireland and the European Communities in Brussels on 21st September and the Community delegation agreed to take careful note of the Irish views. A comprehensive memorandum on the subject was subsequently submitted by the Irish delegation and the matter was further discussed at a meeting in Brussels on 20th October with the Communities. The Irish side will continue to press the issue in the course of the negotiations and it will doubtless be raised also by some of the other applicant countries. I can assure the House that every effort is being made, and will continue to be made, to safeguard the interests of Irish fishermen in an enlarged EEC.
Without attempting to minimise in any way the problem arising in regard to access to fishery waters in an enlarged Community, I should like to point out that this is only one aspect of the EEC common fisheries policy. The common policy, as I have said, also provides for detailed organisation of the fish market, and the price support which this will involve and the organisational arrangements proposed especially the development of producer organisations and the functions proposed for them, should be of considerable benefit to our fishermen and enable them to make the most of the market opportunities available in an enlarged Community.
I turn now to inland fisheries. The overall catches for salmon in 1969 were slightly greater than for the previous year. Thus the high runs of salmon which have occurred since 1962 are being maintained despite disease and other disturbing factors. The market value in 1969 was maintained at a satisfactory level again somewhat higher than that in the preceeding year. The total weight of the catch for the year 1969 by all fishing methods was 30,391 cwts. valued at £1,107,788 as compared with 24,127 cwts. valued at £699,428 in 1968. These figures do not include those for sea-trout which are of relatively minor importance. The quantity of salmon exported was 20,101 cwts. valued at £1,172,694 as against 19,847 cwts. valued at £755,339 in 1968. The higher value per cwt. as compared with landed value arises from the fact that some of the salmon is exported in processed form. Officers of my Department continued to keep a check on the standard of salmon as exported.
Conditions for angling were only moderately good for the season as a whole in 1969 largely because of the near drought conditions which prevailed in the summer and early autumn. The number of salmon rod licences issued at 10,756 showed an increase compared with 9,862 in 1968. The weight of salmon taken by rod and line in 1969 was 182,248 lb as compared with 251,438 lb in 1968.
As was announced last year the total ban on salmon drift netting has been relaxed in the sea areas off the coasts of Galway, Connemara and Ballinakill. In those areas drift net fishing for salmon is now permitted during the period 1st April to 21st July. In 1969 drift netting in those areas was permitted from 9th June to 21st July. The drift nets there must conform to certain standards, namely, that they must not exceed 800 yards in length and nets with a mesh smaller than 2½ inches from knot to knot are prohibited. Drift netting for salmon continues, however, to be prohibited in the interests of conservation in certain reserved areas close in-shore. These are: Killarey and Ballynakill harbours, Clifden, Betraghboy, Kilkieran, Greatman's and Cashla Bays and part of Galway Bay.
The Commission on Inland Fisheries set up to examine the problems inherent in the development, conservation and utilisation of our inland fisheries had their first meeting on 22nd June. The terms of reference of the commission are of a very wide nature to enable them to investigate all aspects of inland fisheries. It must be accepted that because of the complexity of the subject some considerable time must elapse before they will have completed their work and made recommendations.
The suggestion that the inland fisheries of this country should be nationalised continues to receive much publicity. This is a complex question and one which has been considered more than once. The Commission on Inland Fisheries of 1933-35 examined it at the time. I do not propose here to do more than make this passing reference to the question without commitment of any kind. However, when the Commission on Inland Fisheries to which I have referred already have made their recommendations I hope that their findings may provide a fully informed basis for consideration of the policy issues involved.
A joint International Working Group from the International Commission for the North-East Atlantic Fisheries and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea have for some time been studying the implications of the high seas fishing for salmon which takes place in waters off Greenland and also in the north-east Atlantic. The catches have continued at a high level in both regions. Compared with other countries with substantial home water catches Ireland is less seriously affected by the Greenland fishery due to the fact that grilse forms the great bulk of our catches and these are not taken to any extent in Greenland waters. The development of the fishery in north-east Atlantic waters could affect Irish stocks as there is evidence that some of the catch consists of fish in the grilse age-group.
At a meeting of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in May, 1970, a recommendation was passed calling for restrictions by way of close season, et cetera, on fishing for salmon outside national fishery limits. In the absence of objections it is an obligation of our membership of the commission to implement this recommendation by means of an order operative as from the 1971 season which will apply to Irish fishermen fishing for salmon outside national fishery limits. It is to be understood however that the major part of our drift netting for salmon at sea takes place within national fishery limits. The proposed restrictions are of course very much in our overall interest.
The boards of conservators are keeping up the work of protecting and developing the fisheries in their areas. The protection staffs are endeavouring to prevent illegal fishing as far as possible. The conservators deal also with other dangers to fish life such as pollution by sewage and by effluents from industrial and other sources, and the need for vigilance in this sphere was brought home in the abnormal conditions of low flows in 1969.
On the development side, as distinct from protection, the conservators promote suitable work sometimes in collaboration with angling associations by arranging for the removal of obstructions to fish movement in rivers and clearing of spawning beds for better propagation. For such situations river improvements works grants are readily available to cover most of the cost. In any case in which technical advice is required the engineers of my Department give every assistance in the design and execution of the works.
The boards of conservators continue to be faced with the problem whereby the income which they receive from the sale of licences and from fishery rates is not adequate to meet their expenditure which keeps rising from year to year, largely to meet salary and wage demands, and consequently they have to rely on administrative grants paid from the Salmon Conservancy Fund to keep solvent. Payments are also made from the fund in respect of river improvement works such as referred to earlier. The Exchequer grant to the fund is being increased to £73,000.
The investigations conducted by the biological staff are directed towards the collection and assessment of fishery data with a view to the proper regulation of fisheries. The investigations can be concerned with specific stocks such as those in the Rivers Erne and Lee where hydro-electric schemes have interfered with the fisheries, or the effects of drainage or other works on particular rivers. The investigations can, on the other hand, be in the nature of basic research, the results of which can be applied to the global stocks. In the latter category, a study was conducted in 1969 of standing crops in the River Owenea system, County Donegal which is in the possession of my Department. The purpose of this work is to compare the existing crops of juvenile salmon, brown trout and eels. The "carrying" capacity of the system was also investigated by examination of the fauna, flora and water properties so that the capacity of the waters to sustain stocks might be ascertained. Knowledge of this kind is necessary for proper management of fisheries.
Investigations are being continued at the experimental station at Glenties into the application of electricity to fishery management and exploitation. These investigations include the development of electric fish counters, electrical fishing apparatus and the exploration of the effects of various kinds of electrical stimulti on different types of fish.
UDN continues to affect stocks of salmon in many rivers throughout the country although generally to a less degree than previously. In most waters other species of freshwater fish are virtually unaffected with the exception of an odd brown trout.
The outbreak of the disease in trout stocks which occurred during the spawning season of 1968 in a tributary stream of Lough Corrib appeared again in the Corrib system during the last spawning season but whilst the situation was disturbing in December, 1969, a considerable improvement was evident in January, 1970, and only two diseased trout were reported during February, 1970.
During the period February to September, 1970, the incidence of UDN was low throughout most of the country with the exception of the Rivers Blackwater, Lee and Bandon and the rivers in the Kerry area where the disease continued to be fairly serious.
In June and July a total of 366 disease-affected fish was removed from the River Erne. However, this showed a decrease of over 60 per cent when compared with the corresponding period last year.
As happened in previous years with the advent of warmer weather conditions the disease tended to die out generally.
The research into UDN continues to be done mainly at the Veterinary Research Laboratory of my Department at Abbotstown, Castleknock, County Dublin, where attempts are being made to isolate the causative organism. Although the work has not yet resulted in identifying the causative organism it has been possible to confirm that the organism is filterable, that is to say of very small size, probably a virus. The investigations cover a wide range of topics embracing tissue culture, the study of the blood of salmon, transmission experiment and those relating to immunology. Other aspects of the disease continue to be studied in the Zoology Department of University College, Cork, and in the Botany Department of University College, Dublin.
Veterinarians of the Six Counties Ministry of Agriculture continue to work in close collaboration with the Abbotstown Laboratory and liaison is maintained between the research workers of both staffs as well as with those in Britain and other countries. Meetings of the Scientific and Coordinating Committees set up to coordinate research and information on the disease were held during the year. Regular Press releases are issued which give the latest information on the incidence of the disease in affected river systems. All salmon and sea trout exported from this country are inspected to ensure that they are free from disease.
In order to assess the full impact of UDN on fish stocks in a particular river system, arrangements have been made to carry out an intensive survey, including runs of fish, count of redds, et cetera, on the River Bandon in County Cork. A fish counter has been installed at the Bandon fish pass as part of that project.
In order to combat the effects of UDN in Irish rivers my Department has continued with a programme of restocking diseased rivers with supplies of salmon fry. Approximately 650,000 ova was imported early in 1970 mainly from Iceland in order to augment supplies available from home sources for the purpose. Small quantities of sea trout ova were also imported from Ireland and Poland.
It is hoped to arrange for further imports of ova next season. Because of the increased demand for salmon fry for restocking river systems affected by UDN disease and the inadequacy of the existing facilities to cope with anticipated imports of salmon ova in next and subsequent seasons, the Department has initiated proposals to extend Cong Hatchery operated by the Galway Board of Conservators to provide increased rearing facilities there. A site suitable for development adjoins the existing hatchery premises at Cong and arrangements have been made for the transfer of the deeds of this site from the Department of Lands (Forestry Division) to trustees of the Galway Board of Conservators. This site has been surveyed by the Department's engineers; site investigations have been carried out and plans for the work are completed.
A survey initiated by my Department in June, 1966, was completed in 1969 and involved investigations into the effects of the various sources of pollution, mainly of an organic nature, on the water quality of the rivers Blackwater and Martin.
The project was concerned with the changes of water quality caused by discharges from industrial undertakings based on milk, beet, sugar and food processing and from domestic sewers. Flora and fauna, including the fish populations, were studied.
The survey indicated that pollution existed in the rivers Blackwater and Martin and, though localised, was of a severe degree in several cases but that under the normal conditions of river flow encountered during the survey, the capacity (i.e., dilution and natural purification) of the rivers to deal with the waste material appeared to be adequate. That this conclusion would not hold good for conditions of abnormally low river flows is borne out by the fish kills between Mallow and Fermoy in the month of October, 1969, which appear to have been caused by deoxygenation of the river water. The Meterological Office Report for 1969 comments on the unusually small rainfall in the country, particularly the south, during the summer and autumn of 1969. The whole question of pollution is at present under examination. Obviously this is an issue which will have to be tackled on a national basis.
In co-operation with Bord Fáilte, the Fisheries Division of the Department is undertaking an economic evaluation of inland fishery resources. Bord Fáilte are financing and carrying out the work on brown trout, coarse fish and sea angling. The Economic and Social Research Institute are undertaking the work on salmon fishing on behalf of Fisheries Division.
This evaluation should provide useful information on the value of angling to the districts concerned and can be employed by the fishery authorities in determining the capacity for future development of our angling resources as well as in assessing the economic advantages of future investment both in the sporting and in the commercial fishing interest.
Officers of Fisheries Division participated in the sixth session of the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission of FAO held in May, 1970, in Poland. Most noteworthy in an agenda of very wide coverage were the parts of the proceedings relating to pollution of inland waters and to sanitary control of international movements of fish and fish eggs. Pollution was under consideration in a two-day symposium on the nature and extent of pollution in the twenty member countries of the Commission and also in a session in the plenary meeting. International control over movements of fish and fish eggs is of course highly important as a precaution against spread of fish diseases. A consultant is to be commissioned to make a study of measures of import and export control in member countries and to draw up proposals including model regulations for control to serve as a basis for recommendations to Governments.
The Grant-in-Aid sought for the Inland Fisheries Trust for 1970-71 is £220,000. This is an increase of £20,000 on last year's Grant-in-Aid and the extra money will enable the trust to proceed with their present intensified programme of development work. I am sure there is no necessity for me to remind the House of the valuable work that the trust is doing for the development of angling in this country. Indeed the fame of the trust has reached other lands and their success story has been the subject of admiration far outside this country.
From a very modest beginning in the year 1951 the trust's operations now extend to some 150,000 acres of lakes and 1,000 miles of river being developed for trout fishing and a similar area of water for coarse fishing. This means that a vast area of fishable water is available now for anglers both home and tourist and it is hoped to continue expanding the development and improvement work. The economic value to the country is considerable and valuable employment is provided, particularly in the western and midland areas where the greater proportion of the trust's funds are spent. We are happy to note also the continued steady increase in estimated receipts from angling tourism which fully justifies the work of the trust and Bord Fáilte on angling development and tourist angler promotion.
In addition to their work on freshwater the trust is engaged on surveying and charting fishing grounds for sea angling and this has given a boost to this type of angling and attracted to it increasing numbers of home and visiting anglers. The trust's annual reports give an impressive account of their operations and varied work.
In the development of brown trout fishing on the large lakes much emphasis is placed on the reduction of predatory fish such as pike and perch and the improvement of trout spawning and nursery areas in the tributary streams, as it is considered that where very large lakes are involved this work gives better long-term results than artificial stocking. Artificial stocking is normally done by the trust only where natural production is inadequate or where there has been a temporary upset caused by circumstances such as drainage or pollution. An important part of the trust work now relates to biological investigations which is such an essential part of any fishery development programme. Papers published by their biologists have attracted considerable interest all over the world.
At their fish farms the trust produced in 1969 over four million brown trout ova: the bulk of the progeny from these was released into waters being developed by the trust and substantial numbers were sold to angling associations and others wishing to stock their own trout waters.
I have mentioned only a few of the many useful projects operated by the trust. I am aware of the co-operation and goodwill accorded to them by anglers, angling bodies and indeed all sections of our community. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all, including the trust members, for this co-operation and help over the years and to appeal to those who stand to benefit from angling development work to give increased support. I appeal particularly for increased membership as, apart from the monetary value to the trust's income, increased membership has an encouraging effect and is a tangible proof of the appreciation which we know all feel for the trust's good work.
In conclusion, I feel that Deputies will be satisfied that approval of the Estimate should lead to further expansion of our fisheries, both sea and inland and that the sum provided should be a worthwhile investment for the country as a whole. I accordingly recommend this Estimate to the House.
I should like to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on his statement. However, in the 27-page document only two pages are devoted to the question of our entry into the Common Market. At the moment we are negotiating with the EEC and it can be stated that fishermen throughout the country are extremely worried about our prospects. They have every reason to be worried and it is proper that we should voice our protests in this House at the manner in which the EEC adopted their fishery policy. The EEC countries were aware of the fact that the fishing industry is very important for Ireland, Norway and other countries but about six weeks ago they hastily drew up a Common Market fishery policy.
During the debate in this House on our entry into the EEC I voiced certain misgivings about our fishing industry. However, we are told now that no definite steps were taken by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries until the end of September. That is disgraceful and the Department should be ashamed of themselves.
The matter of the protection of our fishing industry was raised by both Opposition parties but the Government did nothing about it until 21st September. I am sure that nothing would have been done even then but for the fact that the EEC announced their policy. As a result of this it appears that Common Market countries will have access to our territorial waters and have the right to fish there. We cannot accept those terms. For generations past fishermen in this country derived their livelihood from the sea and we must ensure that in the future our fishermen will be given the same opportunities.
I know that the Minister for External Affairs went to Norway when that country protested about the EEC policy. However, because of internal troubles in Fianna Fáil at that time the visit was cut short. We have not since heard if the Minister has decided to return to Norway for further discussion on this matter.
A couple of weeks ago we read in the papers that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries had submitted a memorandum to the EEC countries on Ireland's fishery problems. Strange to relate, this document has never appeared in public. The Press has not got it; the House has not got it; the library has not got it. I do not know what is so secret about that document. For the last two days I have been in touch with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I went to the general office in Leinster House looking for a copy of this document and was told that it is so confidential that no one can see it except the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the EEC countries.
I find this a very strange attitude. It is narrow and bigoted. Every Member of this House is entitled to know what is being done in a Department. I must ask whether this document is a sell-out of the Irish fisherman? Is that why members of the Opposition are being denied access to it? What is so vitally important that we are not let read the document? Let us contrast the situation with Norway. Norway put the case forcibly within the last six months. They published their views in the international press. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries seem to have a new way of thinking, and it has something of the clock-and-dagger attitude. The misgiving I have about the document is that it is a complete sell-out of the Irish fisherman to the EEC countries.
Bord Iascaigh Mhara seem to have made little headway in encouraging young men to enter the fishing industry. In 1960 the total number of full-time fishermen was 1,764. The total number in 1969 was 1,821. We have only about 60 extra men employed in the fishing industry now. This is a dismal record. Bord Iascaigh Mhara should have admitted that they have failed to encourage young men to take up fishing for their livelihood. They have not got a proper public relations officer who should go around to the vocational, secondary and primary schools to point out to youths leaving school the opportunities available for them in the fishing industry. If these young men are not employed they take the emigrant boat. Most of the fishing is done around the west coast and the youths have no alternative but to emigrate unless they fish. It should be pointed out to them that fishing could be a lucrative industry.
It is refreshing to hear that Bord Iascaigh Mhara seem to have decided to open a school for the training of fishermen. It is not enough to offer £4 pocket money to any young man in this day and age. It is simply an insult to him. These young lads are away from home. If they have a few bottles of beer and a packet of cigarettes each day the £4 would be spent in three nights. They have to have shoes, suits, shirts, ties and so on, and they have to pay for their own entertainment such as dances, pictures or the odd game of cards. They might like to go to an odd dog race or to a race meeting. Where would they go with £4? Bord Iascaigh Mhara should be more realistic than to think that £4 pocket money is good enough for young lads of 17 or 18 years of age. This sum should be increased to £8. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this point and to make entry to the fishing industry more attractive. When people are away from home they have many expenses. It is even expensive to write a letter home.
Last May permission was given by the Dáil to Bord Iascaigh Mhara to increase their borrowing powers. During that limited debate it was pointed out that our fishing grounds are getting little or no protection from foreign trawlers. This state of affairs was not mentioned here today. This is regrettable. There is not even one vessel at the moment protecting our fishermen along the coast. We have listened to 27 pages of a brief being read, and have heard all about the diseases of brown trout and about brown trout ova. Many little harbours were mentioned but this question of protection was not mentioned.
These are not matters from my Department.
Reference was made to many subjects which come under the care of the Office of Public Works. There was no mention of protecting the livelihood of our fishermen. Bord Iascaigh Mhara should tell the Department of Defence and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries that they are putting much money into the industry and that they expect their investment to be protected. This is all taxpayers' money. The Department should take the necessary steps to keep the French trawlers which are cutting our fishermen's nets away from the Irish coast. These Frenchmen are going free. This state of affairs has lasted too long and will, I hope, be ended soon.
Regrettably, there was no mention in this 27-page document of the composition of Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The fishermen have had no say about the men who control their destiny. The fishermen should have a direct say in the appointment of representatives to Bord Iascaigh Mhara. It is not good enough nowadays to appoint men to this board just because they are Fianna Fáil cumainn chairmen or ex-Fianna Fáil TDs. The fishermen who know what it is like to go out at 5 a.m. and return at 10 p.m. should be consulted. They should have some say in Bord Iascaigh Mhara, whether by election or otherwise. It is entirely wrong that this State body should be so politically unbalanced. There are many fishermen who have now retired on reaching the age of 65 years or due to arthritis or rheumatics — which they get from the life they have led — who should be brought into Bord Iascaigh Mhara where their influence would make itself felt. I trust that if any vacancies should occur on that board, the Parliamentary Secretary, in his period of office, will make sure to appoint men who know all about fishing, men who are not just theorists but fishermen who have spent their lives at fishing and who I am quite sure would make a valuable contribution.
Strange to relate, the Parliamentary Secretary made no reference to the nine French-built trawlers purchased by Irish fishermen. I addressed a Parliamentary Question to the Minister on this matter on 4th November, 1970. He told me that BIM gave a grant of £137,550 towards the purchase of those trawlers and that the total cost was £550,000. The fishermen were led up the garden path by BIM so far as the disgraceful story of these trawlers is concerned. Just because it was easier to get credit in France at that time, BIM actually twisted the arms of the fishermen to buy those boats. We now find that four of the boats are in a bad state of rot and that the other five are suspected. It is a disgrace that £500,000 of taxpayers' money was thrown away by virtue of the mismanagement of this affair by a semi-State body and, yet, nobody has been brought to heel. A number of years ago, CIE procured some sleepers in France and they had the very same experience.
One would think that, when those boats were being built in France, one of BIM's surveyors would have taken a bit of the timber home and given it for examination to our Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. The Minister should order an inquiry into the whole sordid affair of the disease in the timber used in those boats.
In a supplementary question I asked if the Parliamentary Secretary could say what guarantee was given to the fishermen by the French company that built those boats but my question is still unanswered. I asked if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider seeking compensation for the fishermen who invested their money in those boats which are now rotten. These questions are being asked up and down the country by people who never spent a day fishing. Now BIM are retreating. The whole thing is wrong. An inquiry should be conducted and the man responsible should either be suspended by or dismissed from BIM.
I understand that another gentleman in Donegal wants to back out although he has paid a deposit for one of those boats but BIM will not allow him to do so. Would you blame an individual for looking for certain guarantees in view of the obvious mismanagement in the past in this connection? This gentleman in Killybegs should not have his arm twisted by BIM if he wants to change his mind about the purchase of one of those boats in view of the fiasco in relation to the other nine.
I consider that BIM should place the contract documents concerning those boats for inspection by Members of this House. We vote money at the request of the Department but the snag is that when there is mismanagement we are not able to do anything about it. There should be some procedure whereby there can be some redress when State money is mismanaged or misappropriated. Every skipper receives——
The Deputy will appreciate that sums voted for semi-State bodies in this country are Grants-in-Aid and it then becomes a question for the auditors.
It is still public money.
The money has been wasted and the people who were the cause of that situation should be brought to heel.
Especially the boys who brought the worms across from France.
In this criticism I am not being political but I want to do my best to ensure that this type of thing will never happen again. We have plenty of Irish boatyards — Killybegs, Dingle——
Achill.
Those boats should have been built in this country, but because of the secretive twisting of the arms of the fishermen, nicely and quietly, by BIM, our unfortunate fishermen had to go to France for the boats. They had no alternative. This type of cloak and dagger behaviour by BIM is wrong. Their surveyors passed the boats and now the boats are rotten. Half a million pounds of the taxpayers' money is too much to waste and to let a Frenchman walk away with it.
A skipper will get a grant of 25 per cent for a new boat. That is a good thing but there is more than a skipper to a boat: there are the ordinary deckhands and those men should get a break also from BIM. It is about time a charter was drawn up in respect of fisheries in general. Something should be done in the near future for them of the kind that was done for the dockers by Mr. Con Murphy. In my view the number of drop-outs in the fishing industry is far too high. As one who has been very close to fishermen all his life, I may say it is about time we had this special inquiry into the whole composition of the fishing industry.
These deckhands have a good week and a bad week. There are too many valleys and too few peaks. In their own way these people are playing a part in building up the fishing industry and they should get the necessary incentives to stay in the industry, which they are not getting at the moment. I hope that Bord Iascaigh Mhara will look into this matter in more detail and perhaps produce a report like the report Mr. Con Murphy made about the dockers in Dublin. I am quite sure this would be welcomed by every deckhand in the country.
Another aspect of the fishing industry is the question of insurance. The insurance of these big trawlers, the 75-footers, costs something in the region of £600 per annum. That is a colossal figure. The powers-that-be should devise some method of reducing that insurance. I know one man who was buying a launch in Dingle and, while he was purchasing it from Bord Iascaigh Mhara, he was paying insurance of something in the region of £88 per annum. The moment he had purchased the launch he went to another insurance company and they insured it for £24. The fisherman is being bled, and bled by the new time, when there can be a difference of £60 between insurance companies. Bord Iascaigh Mhara should take note of that. Where is the £600 going? Bord Iascaigh Mhara should take a second look at the insurance side.
The banks and other industrial concerns should play a part in the fishing industry. A few years ago the banks offered grants to students if they wanted to do a course in the university. That scheme was welcomed by everyone. The banks should show the same interest in the man who wants to acquire a boat. It is a fact that 75 per cent of the students who graduate from universities emigrate. It would be a good thing if the banks or other industrial concerns such as the insurance companies gave loans to potential skippers who complete the course in the school which has been set up. Three thousand pounds is a lot of money for a young man of 21, 22 or 23 years of age who has just completed his skipper's course, and where is he to get it?
The tutors in these colleges will recognise the boys who have the art and the gift and who are genuinely interested in fishing and should recommend them for a loan to start them off. Why not give them the same break as the young man who is getting free university education? There are many young men like that from Cork, Kerry, Clare, Galway, Mayo and Donegal and all up along the west coast and, if they thought that if they went to this school, studied hard, took the right interest in the subjects being taught and passed the examination and that at the end of it all there was a chance that they would own a boat of their own, there would be a rapid expansion of interest in fishing. I could see young boys coming from all over Ireland and trying to get into this college.
At the moment there are many boys doing the course and getting the skipper's ticket and they then have no money to put a deposit on a boat. Bord Iascaigh Mhara should direct their attention to that aspect of the industry. I was told that in my own locality at one time there were somewhere in the region of 2,000 people associated directly or indirectly with fishing. The tradition was there but regrettably it was let die. I would ask Bord Iascaigh Mhara to think along these lines and to go around to business firms and point out to them what they could do and what it would mean to the fishery industry as a whole if such loans were made available to young skippers when they had completed the course. I am quite sure that we would not then be short of skippers.
We are told in a report sent out by Bord Iascaigh Mhara, by Mr. Brendan Kelly, the famous gentleman, famous for confiscating boats more than developing fishing——
The Deputy is being critical of people who are not here to defend themselves.
This man deserves to be criticised.
That is not the normal practice.
I do not agree. There was no fishing until he took over.
How many are fishing now? I will give the figures. In 1960 we had something in the region of 1,760 and in 1970 we have only 60 more men fishing. If the Deputy calls that success after ten years I do not know what success is. The price has also gone up.
We are told in this report that he expects that there will be a shortage of skilled skippers and crew and that by 1974 we will have about 350 extra boats. Every time these gentlemen open their mouths they speak in millions of pounds, but they are elusive millions. I cannot understand how these figures are arrived at. I cannot understand how he will have 354 extra boats in three years time when he could get only 60 extra fishermen into the fishing industry from 1960 to 1969.
It is about time these gentlemen were more realistic in their approach to the whole question of the fishing industry. I said in this House before and I say it again that in 1966 a group of Dingle fishermen asked me to come to Dublin with them as their spokesman regarding the confiscation of boats due to arrears of payments. Immediately Bord Iascaigh Mhara heard that I was to be their spokesman they decided not to meet us at all. That is a true story. It is on the record. They refused to meet a deputation because of the fact that I was with them, and I was only a county councillor at the time.
Was that not enough?
It is very wrong that an official of a semi-State body should not have the courtesy to meet public representatives and fishermen and discuss whatever complaints they have. We are all Irishmen. Why not sit round a table and discuss things coolly and calmly even if we have differences?
They always meet us.
You are well in, Joe. You are on the right side of the House. It is about time this practice of taking decisions behind closed doors was finished. Another complaint I have about Bord Iascaigh Mhara is their lack of communication with the ordinary fisherman. They should have a little pamphlet or magazine which would cover their activities and which they should send to the skippers who are all registered fishermen. It would not cost very much and it would tell the ordinary fisherman what is happening in the industry and what is being prepared for it in the future. I would strongly urge Bord Iascaigh Mhara to prepare a little fortnightly or monthly magazine and send it to the fishermen.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us today that there has been a certain amount of money written off down through the years. I am quite sure that relates to the boats that were confiscated by Bord Iascaigh Mhara because some fishermen could not meet the hire purchase terms. It would be interesting to be told how many boats were re-possessed. That was skipped over here today. We were not told of the hardship re-possession of these boats caused. It is about time this House was given the true facts. In some cases of re-possession, Bord Iascaigh Mhara themselves were more or less responsible for the arrears that accumulated. It is well known — Deputy O'Connor and I do not very often agree but he will agree with me on this — that there are long delays while waiting for engine and boat parts. It sometimes takes six months to get parts and I have been told that there is a boat in a certain part of the country which has been waiting three years for an engine. This is entirely wrong. Arrears are accumulating all the time, the poor fisherman cannot pay the arrears and the boat is then taken over. In the dark of night a couple of men paid by Bord Iascaigh Mhara will steal the boat out of the harbour. They will do it at night for fear of being called blacklegs. That is what is happening and that is what has happened in the past. If Bord Iascaigh Mhara told this House what they paid for these boats originally and what they got for them when they were re-sold many Deputies would rise up in anger. I remember one boat in Dingle not so long ago — the people in Bord Iascaigh Mhara remember it well too — which was re-possessed. Nobody would touch it. It was a "black boat" because there was a sad story attached to it. The boat rotted away on the pier. The county sheriff sold it in the end for a very small figure after an advertisement had appeared in the newspaper for several weeks. I would ask Bord Iascaigh Mhara, before they re-possess these boats, to put their own house in order first. The arrears accumulated in this case because there were no maintenance men to repair the boat and the owners were waiting for a part of the engine which they did not get. That whole question should be looked into. How many of these boats are tied up at different piers around our coasts?
The Parliamentary Secretary made no reference whatever to extending our boatyards. According to the chairman of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara we are to have 354 extra boats in 1974. Where will the 354 boats be built? There is a very fine boatyard in Arklow, a fine one in Dingle, a fine one in Killybegs and one in Deputy Lenehan's area. Will all these boats be bought outside the country?
The only boats without worms are the ones made in my area.
Strangely enough the Parliamentary Secretary made no mention of the 354 boats but I shall quote from a report in the Irish Times of August 24th, 1970. Under the heading: “BIM sets target of £14m. for fishing industry by 1974” we are told:
BIM envisages the use of more than 350 extra boats by 1974.
I am sure the men in Wicklow, the men in Mayo, the men in Dingle and the men in Donegal would be satisfied if we were told that 40 boats a year would be built in the different boatyards. That would satisfy us down to the ground. This House should get an assurance that Irish boatyards will first be considered, especially as Bord Iascaigh Mhara own these boatyards, and that Irish craftsmen will get the opportunity of building these boats. We have plenty of room for extensions in Dingle. There is a grand foreshore there. I am sure the same can be said of all the other boatyards. I see no reason why we should be sending our money out when we have the skilled technicians at home and there are many more young fellows who would be prepared to go in as apprentices and come out qualified boatbuilders. That is how the west would be saved, by giving employment at home and not in France or in Norway. I strongly urge Bord Iascaigh Mhara to reconsider the whole question of buying these boats outside and to keep the money at home and give work to our men. That is the only way to save the West.
The Parliamentary Secretary said in regard to buying boats:
The grants are usually 25 per cent of the cost price and the loans can be up to 70 per cent depending on the amount of the deposit that the purchaser of the vessel is able to put down. The loans are repayable over a 15 year period.
That is not so. They are repayable over a ten year period. It was 15 years but Bord Iascaigh Mhara have recently changed it to ten. It is wrong that such a statement should be made in the House. Ten years is the period.
It is 15 years.
It has been changed to ten years during the past few months. A skipper to whom I have been speaking asked me to request Bord Iascaigh Mhara to go back to the old system of 15 years. I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary for this inaccuracy; I blame the person who wrote it into the statement.
As I understand it they will get an extra grant if they pay in ten years.
I strongly urge that the board revert to the 15-year system. Nobody can know what trouble they might have in relation to repairs and so on.
From my reading of page 9, the period is still 15 years.
It is now ten years. I can bring the skipper to whom I spoke before the board if they wish to pursue the matter further.
I am only reading what is before me.
I read it also and that is why I am worried. One other point I should like to raise concerns deep freeze facilities. In my part of the country we are in the unique position whereby the fishermen's co-operative society must go to Midleton in County Cork to have fish stored in deep freeze so that if a man in, say, Mayo, wishes to buy the fish, it will be necessary for the fishermen to send two men from Dingle to Midleton to load a lorry to take the fish to Mayo. This is a disgraceful state of affairs. Bord Iascaigh Mhara are not prepared to give a grant to the Dingle fishermen to enable them to provide their own deep freeze plant. When the fish is landed it must be taken a distance of about 80 miles in order to be stored in deep freeze.
As far as the Dingle port is concerned, Bord Iascaigh Mhara should hang their head in shame. Down through the years they have done their best to close the port and this situation in relation to the deep freeze plant is the last straw. It is not good enough in this day and age. The fishermen have applied repeatedly in the past, as I am sure Deputy O'Connor is aware, to the board to provide a deep freeze plant but each time they make representations they are told the matter is under consideration. In Dingle we have a tradition of fishing. I would say that more boats were repossessed in Dingle than in any other harbour in Ireland. So far as landings are concerned we were always in the top five or six. Yet, when the board decided to develop six ports, Dingle was omitted while ports whose landings were less than those of Dingle were developed.
It seems to me there is a vendetta on the part of the board towards Dingle. The fishermen were being afforded some facilities for deep freeze storing by a private company and I understand that Bord Iascaigh Mhara recommended that this company qualify for an IDA grant. However, the company have now told the fishermen that they need the plant for their own use and, consequently, the fishermen can no longer be accommodated. This attitude of neglect is not good enough. The board should have a very close look at the whole question in relation to Kerry.
We are told in this statement that the Parliamentary Secretary intends to carry out harbour improvements. In Kerry there are only three harbours, but in Galway there are 12, in Mayo there are seven and in Donegal there are 12. This is consistent with Bord Iascaigh Mhara's neglect of Kerry but they look after every other county. The Kerry fishermen are as good as any others in the country and I believe it is wrong that only three harbours in the county should be developed.
We are told also in this statement, page 16, that the Decca navigation system will shortly come into operation. This is very welcome news but we should be given a definite date for the coming into operation of the system. It has been on the mat for the past three years. The fishermen cannot educate themselves, as it were, in the use of this new mechanism. Some of them are ready for it but they should be given a definite date as to when it will be put into operation. The Minister should be more explicit and give the Decca Navigation Company a deadline.
In conclusion, I should like to refer to one matter which concerns the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I am sorry the Minister is not here today because I think he owes me an apology. During the course of the debate concerning extra borrowing powers for Bord Iascaigh Mhara I said that men who had no fishing background were now getting boats. I made that allegation in all sincerity because I knew at the time that a certain individual in my home town who was chairman of the local Fianna Fáil cumann and who was also a national teacher, was being given a boat.
He should be a good fisherman so.
In reply the Minister more or less told me that I was under a misapprehension about the whole matter. I now challenge the accuracy of what the Minister said. It has been reported in the Press as well as on radio and television and this gentleman is getting a boat. Therefore, the Minister should be good enough to come in and apologise to me since my statement was correct. More power to him if he is getting a boat. When I made the statement I thought fishermen should get first priority. I will not say the Minister deliberately told a lie but I will say that he was probabely misinformed. I will quote what he said from Volume 247, No. 1, column 90 of the 26th May, 1970:
Let us contrast that attitude with that of his colleague Deputy Begley from Kerry. His approach to the general problem was very depressing. He thinks boats are being given to people who are not fishermen at all and that people who are fishermen have to give up their boats.
He went on further to say:
Deputy Begley suggested that loans were given to people who never fished. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara do not give grants or loans for boats except to people who have skippers' tickets.
That is completely untrue. This gentleman who got the boat is not a fisherman by trade of profession. He is a schoolteacher.
I want to make it quite clear when I made this statement I made it in all sincerity. I would not mislead this House one way or the other and the man who gave that information to the Minister, whoever he was, told lies. The Minister said:
An Bord Iascaigh Mhara do not give grants or loans for boats except to people who have skippers' tickets.
That is completely wrong. It is about time the people who are advising the Minister — I know the Minister made this statement in good faith — were called to heel if they are not prepared to give proper information to charges which are made in this House. One is suspicious of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara straight away. Will they go to any length to save their faces? What kind of whitewashing is that? Everybody in Dingle town, everybody in County Kerry who reads The Kerryman knows I told the truth. Despite this the Minister had the cheek and the audacity to come in here and say that I was misleading the House. I challenge him here today on this statement. I am prepared to accept that he was misinformed and that he was not familiar with fishing, because he was not long enough in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. At the same time it is very wrong of an official to give that type of information to the Minister and send him in here to make a fool of himself in the eyes of Kerry.
The last point I should like to make is that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara now and again have receptions for cookery competitions and for skippers, especially when a skipper has successfully completed his ten years and is getting a bonus. More power to the skippers. We are all delighted when we hear of a man making a success of his way of life. Everybody is thrilled, no matter what walk of life he belongs to, but just because some of us come into this House and criticise people we feel should be criticised is no reason that we should be passed over when those receptions take place, especially when men are invited to them who have no connection whatever with the fishing industry. But, because they are members of a particular political party, they are invited to them. It is time the men in An Bord Iascaigh Mhara were big enough to stop this type of thing going on. I am prepared to say outside this House what I am saying here now. The men in An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should be big enough not to use those receptions, which might be down in Killorglin next week or Arklow the week after, in this way by not inviting public men who dare criticise the board. We are not worried about it but we say that it is the taxpayers who are paying for this.
I am reminded, in speaking on this Estimate, that 40 years ago there was a separate Department of Fisheries. Since then the Fisheries Branch has been part of the Department of Lands and now it is part of the Department of Agriculture. The net result of this has been that over the years there has been a decline in the fishing industry.
We are a small island country and no part of the country is more than 100 miles from the seacoast. Perhaps the decline in the fishing industry is a reflection on the make-up of the Dáil down the years. It would be unusual to find a person who spent his time mainly at fishing elected to this Dáil, because the job is a very lonely one and he would not come in contact with many people. I feel, as a result of that, that the emphasis on this industry has declined and the great wealth which surrounds this country has been ignored by successive Governments over those years.
The fact that the Fisheries Branch is now to all intents and purposes handed over to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara is a disappointing result of this lack of interest over the years. There has always been great scope and there still is great scope for a huge expansion in exports through fishing. It is only in recent years that we have begun to wake up to this fact but great damage has been done to the infrastructure on which this industry has been built.
I hope, when speaking on this Estimate, to speak for the industry in all parts of the country. The neglect which has taken place in the industry is more marked in the constituency of Wicklow than in any other part of the country. The fishing port of Arklow was at one time famous throughout western Europe. At the end of the last war there were 128 fishing boats operating from Arklow but now, unfortunately, there are less than a dozen operating on a fulltime basis from that port. This decline can be seen in every coastal county, where harbour facilities have been allowed to decay and quaysides have fallen into the sea and into rivers. The Minister has given a list of harbours which are due for improvement in the coming years. Although my colleague from Kerry finds his county has been badly treated he will also find that no mention is made of any improvements for harbours on the Wicklow coast. If this industry is to flourish and expand no part of the country can be ignored. It has been the policy of the Department and Bord Iascaigh Mhara to create five major fishery harbours whilst allowing other areas to decline. This is not the right attitude.
The figures for landings of demersal or white fish as I prefer to call them such as cod, plaice and haddock, and pelagic fish, such as herrings, have increased encouragingly over the last three years. These increases have been achieved by almost the same number of men with the same fishing fleets. In 1968 the total quantity of wet fish caught was 838,000 cwt. at a value of about £1,700,000, and if we add to that shell fish the value was £2,400,000. The Minister has told us that the 1969 figure is up by over £½ million to almost £3 million. A more accurate comparison could be made if we could compare the quantities landed as well as the value of the landing.
The figures, though encouraging, fall short of the projected landings it was hoped to achieve in the Third Programme: Economic and Social Development produced by the Government in March, 1969. A target of £5½ million worth of sea fish landings was set for 1972. If we are to achieve this target landings will have to be increased in value by £2½ million in the next two years. When one looks at the number of extra boats and trawlers coming into the industry one realises that this target is going to be very difficult to achieve.
Exports in 1969 were up by one-third but we must remember that we are starting at a very low base, because £3.5 million worth of exports is a very low figure when compared with exports in other major industries such as the cattle industry. We are a small island with a great tradition for seafaring. The figure for 1969 is miserable but the fact that we are expanding at the rate of one-third per year is encouraging. Imports of fish amounted to almost £2 million which again is a significant increase. This means that net exports amounted to £1.6 million. A significant improvement will have to be made this year if we are to come anywhere near the £7 million target for 1972. Everyone would be delighted if this target was achieved or exceeded but if it is even to be achieved there will have to be a great deal more activity in the fishing industry than we have had in the last three years.
We can break down the fishing industry into three sections. If we do this we find we have completely excluded ourselves from activity in the first section: the west Atlantic, Iceland and Greenland. We have almost 200 boats operating in the second section, which is 60 miles from the coast to as far north as the Shetlands.
