Last week in discussing this Estimate I spoke of the manner in which the Government had dealt with the development and encouragement of our commercial fisheries, of our inshore fisheries and deep-sea fisheries. I indicated that we need very substantial boosts if fisheries on a commercial basis are to survive and, indeed, increase in the future.
It is all too easy to say that we require three very definite things if this is to be done. We need fishery training in a proper and adequate manner; we need boats and gear available to the fishermen on terms they can afford and are able to meet; we need landing points, shelters and harbours available to our fishermen. These are elementary ingredients. There is a further real necessity for adequate and profitable marketing. I do not intend to discuss the point here but merely underline that, if we are to join the Common Market, with all the advantages which we are told about, we may have to meet new and serious competition. We will have to move swiftly and faster than we have been prone to do over the years in which we have been tinkering with the fishing industry as a whole.
Efforts have been made to provide boats, craft and gear. They may be the easiest to supply of the three factors I have mentioned. We have been doing our best about the training of fishermen. We appear to have made some breakthrough by the establishment of the special marine school we are now about to start building in Donegal. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he would clarify in his reply whether the manner in which he adverted to this school and its utilisation was rather understating its value for the future. In his introductory speech the Parliamentary Secretary did not seem to give any great importance to this in the scheme of things. That would appear to be what I described last week as a one-year course operation. I hope this will not be the case. I rather expect it will not be. I hope there will be greater opportunities for education in this respect. The Greencastle school is in course of erection and now is the time to co-ordinate all the facilities available in the regional college of technology in Letterkenny with Greencastle. There should be discussion between the Department of Education, the Fisheries Branch and the authorities in the Letterkenny college with the object of co-ordinating all the facilities. These discussions should take place before the two institutions get set in their ways. They are in close proximity to one another and it should be possible to have the fullest co-operation and co-ordination between the two. I know that the college in Letterkenny is very anxious for this. The two schools should complement one another.
There is rumour of a very big development in this direction in Cork. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to be particularly alert to what the Department of Education is thinking about lest we might finish up with a school in Greencastle which would really be nothing more nor less than a skipper's ticket issuing operation. That would negative the whole idea of Greencastle as the forerunner of other such institutions. If there is to be a second school of the type envisaged in Greencastle, Cork would probably be the best centre. There is no reason why such a school should not be established in Galway. As far as my recollection goes, there was talk of Cork and/or Galway being developed as further centres. We would all welcome further opportunities for the education and training of our fishermen but I believe the Department of Education has quite enough on its hands in other directions without taking on this kind of education as well. Up to this the Department of Education never did anything about this particular type of training and I doubt if it would be sufficiently well equipped to provide such training.
I said something the last day about the lack of harbour and shelter facilities around the coast. As I said then, I do not know which of three things should come first—training for the fishermen, availability of harbours or availability of boats. Actually, all three should move ahead simultaneously. Where there is a concentration of boats and fishermen on our very exposed west coast the first priority would be the improvement of harbours, shelters and landing facilities. I did not mention anything like all the places mentioned by the survey team where facilities were promised by me on behalf of the Government away back in 1968. That is a promise on which the Government subsequently welshed. I had reached Ballybay in the north west. I had not referred to Gweedore, Corransport and Inishboffin. There has been some activity in Burtonport but the rock on which a coaster sat a week ago is still there. That obstruction will have to be removed and all the other works planned will have to be carried out.
Further down the coast the only important development has been that carried out at Killala. That of course has a history of its own, a unique history within the general framework of the Department of Finance sanctions. They are not drawn out of the hat, but it is certainly the nearest thing to it that Killala should have got away at the time it did, while other places, which got promises at the same time, have not since been even mentioned. However it got away; it is a pity that more did not do so at that time so that we would have had a little more activity, a little more safety and encouragement to our fishermen and to our potential fishermen to get into the fishing business or to extend the activities in which they are already engaged. It would help our off-shore fisheries and do a better job for them all around the country.
The same sad story works, in conjunction with the non-carrying out of the survey team's recommendations, right down along into the west Cork coast. Without appearing, as I may have done last week, to talk solely in this regard in relation to my own constituency coast, I would again emphasise that the survey team's proposals and recommendations as they apply to all the west coast are urgently needed and cannot and should not in any circumstances be allowed to be put off any longer, that the Government should either get on with this job of putting up these shelters and carrying out the improvement of smaller harbours or give up the ghost altogether and tell the fishermen that there is no future for them, that they do not believe in their operations and are not going to back them in respect of harbour facilities, boats, gear or anything else. We would be only honest in doing that if that is what we have in mind rather than codding them along that we have a high regard for them, for the potential of their industry and for the future there is for it. We are preaching this and giving lip service to it but doing next to nothing about making possible its achievement. In the interim, while we can show an improvement and an increase in our landings and our fishing activities, this is not likely to continue unless there is a real input financially by the Government under all the various heads of boats, gear, harbours and the education of the fishermen of tomorrow.
There is also the question of the protection of our fisheries within our limits. Whether they be the limits of today or the limits of tomorrow in EEC conditions, we still have a job of work to do which we have not been doing over the years, that is, the job of protecting that which we regard as our own fishery waters. There have been some purchases made recently by way of replacement of ships or protection vessels and this I regard as an encouragement. On the other hand, having got what we have at the moment, new craft, and even allowing that we get what is now promised, we still will have got only to the stage at which we were perhaps 20 years ago in the number of craft available and really small cover that small number of three or four craft can give. We need much more if we seriously believe that protection is part of our operations at all. We are not doing anything other than a hit or miss job at its very best, even with four vessels, when and if they are afloat and if they are capable of being manned, about which very serious doubt is being expressed. Even if that were so, we cannot by any stretch of the imagination hold this out as a really serious attempt to protect our inshore fisheries. I know that the Department go along with me in the idea that we need much more protection if we are to do it seriously at all. I would advocate that they continue their pressure on the Government to go in a bigger and better way into this protection of our fisheries, because all the other things which I and they advocate and have been seeking over the years in relation to increasing our fishing fleet will only tend to highlight the lack of protection and indeed will only be defeating our efforts in extending, on the one hand, and failing to provide protection, on the other. This is something which must be continually pressed on the Government as an absolute necessity.
There is then this very serious matter of the pollution of our rivers and lakes, which is getting away somewhat from the commercial sea fishing which I have been talking about. While we talk about the laws we have not got in relation to the protection of rivers, there are laws and regulations in various ways which, if operated to the fullest extent, would go a long way towards preventing a deterioration of the situation in regard to pollution of these waters. It is not good enough to sit around and bemoan the fact that we need new laws or regulations because we cannot do this or that when there is so much we can do that is not being done and when our waters are being further polluted in various ways by various agencies, all no doubt in the name of progress but of a very doubtful kind.
Our inland fisheries, and particularly our salmon fisheries, bring me to the situation of the Foyle Fisheries. This matter has been rather a bone of contention down the years which was to some degree abated by the establishment of the Foyle Fisheries Commission, but I am sure that nobody realises better than the Department that it is not a perfect answer and indeed perhaps no perfect answer may ever be found for the whole problem of the Foyle Fisheries and its administration. I would, however, commend them to continue along the way they have been going, of trying to weed out the people holding licences in other people's names, people holding licences who in fact do not need them and who do not themselves participate in fishing salmon in the Foyle and who do not need the revenue they may be earning from salmon fishing in the Foyle. We have this situation of the duplication and multiplication of licences that are still operating there under false names.
I know the difficulties of finding out who they are and weeding out those that are not really in the category which could be regarded as fishermen—but at the same time there are still a number there year in and year out—and finding the few and getting rid of them and replacing them with people who genuinely have been and are fishing as crew members for a good number of years, on whose family circumstances the income they can derive from the short season on the Foyle can have a very great impact. I suggest that we pursue this line as vigorously as we can, continuing to do it year in and year out and perhaps we will weed out the multiple licence owners, the faceless people, who have been doing this hogging of the fisheries there and on the sweat of the fishermen who operate the boats and carry the licence in name in many cases but do not own the gear or the boat or get a revenue from it other than a wage or a percentage of the catch. This is something which I would urge on the Department and on their representative on the commission, that they would pursue that with the greatest of vigour. While it might not mean a great deal to a great number of people, there are many of our fishermen along the Foyle who would benefit if this course were pursued and licences were distributed to a greater degree than they have been up to now.
On the subject of pollution, when an industry is about to be established there may be ten sites on which it could be located but we often find that, for some perverse reason, it is eventually located near a stream which, perhaps, feed into a very valuable salmon fishery or a good fishing river or lake. Anybody who raises a voice in protest at that stage will be branded by some people, no doubt for their own purposes, as a sort of traitor to the locality for doing so. People who stand up to this sort of thing are apt to be regarded as traitors or cranks and this has been a feature of a number of cases in the past. This is a pity because we are not so overburdened with new industrial developments involving a great quantity of damaging effluent that we are short of sites to cater adequately for such industry without polluting valuable fisheries which, once destroyed, may be capable of restoration only at extremely high cost, if at all.
I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should endeavour to keep himself and his Department informed, even unofficially, of the development and establishment or proposed establishment of any industry, particularly any industry that might produce damaging effluent and, in the long-term interest of fisheries, he should take his stand and see to it that those who can take action locally are properly informed of their rights in the matter and in regard to what anybody can do to prevent damage before it takes place. The Parliamentary Secretary could fulfil a very useful role in this matter if he helped to advise the local people who are fighting the cause of anti-pollution by giving them information and perhaps the results of research that may be available to him but not to the local people interested in preserving waters and fisheries. In his own way he could be usefully engaged in encouraging watchfulness in regard to damage that could be avoided even in circumstances where the establishment of an industry is imminent. We are not overburdened with industries of this type nor have we a lack of suitable alternative sites. If it comes to a point where an industry can only be so located that it will interfere with fisheries and will pollute waters we must then carefully weigh the immediate profit to us and to the economy against the long-term damage that may be caused to fisheries or water resources and ultimately to the economy as a whole.
I do not hold with those who think that any industry must be accommodated regardless of the damage it may cause to fisheries or water resources. If it must do damage and if that damage is great such an industry should not be considered because the industry may be of short duration but the water resources are there for all time provided we take care of them and we must do this if we are to survive. The fish life and the benefits associated with it can also exist indefinitely compared with, perhaps, the short-term advantage of having an industry which may be promising at present but which nobody can say will be there in five years time. In considering any such crux we must bear in mind the long-term advantages of clean water and fisheries; these cannot be set aside in any circumstances for what may be merely a short-term economic advantage. The balance must always lie in favour of the certainty of the benefit of preserving and conserving water resources and fish life.
While some potential industrialists are as concerned as any of us may be regarding the possible damage the siting of an industry might have on fisheries or in regard to pollution, there are others who are not so concerned. They will use the argument that the prevention of pollution by purifying the effluent will be very costly and this cost will be boosted beyond all reason by such people, who may be our nextdoor neighbour, may be black, white or red or come from the other side of the world. You get some who are concerned to do no damage and others who will use their supposed better knowledge of the industry which they propose to set up to boost the cost if plant to deal with the effluent is mentioned or insisted on, and will use their arguments in a blackmailing manner to suggest that if this is insisted on there will be no factory or industry.
I am sure many of us have met such people. We should beware of them and be careful that they do not stampede us into accepting harmful industry which would have an output of damaging effluent into our watercourses. We must protect ourselves against them and if necessary tell them that if they do not like things as they are here they can take themselves and their potential industry wherever they wish. In most cases you will probably find at that stage that they will go to the extent of taking the necessary steps to combat any damage the effluent might cause if discharged untreated.
Now that our accession to the EEC is imminent we must ensure that the necessary finances be made available for urgent operations in regard to the development of fisheries. There must be provision for fleets and gear. Potential fishermen must be made aware of the attractions of the fisherman's life. Above all, better landing facilities at smaller harbours and inlets along the west coast must be provided, while, at the same time, extensions to our major fishery harbours must be accelerated. These improvements must be carried out before the existing facilities become overtaxed. A massive job must be undertaken. For far too long not enough has been done in regard to the development of this industry. There must be positive thinking on the matter now and there must be a realisation of the vast potential of the industry. We have an extensive coast line and some of the best fishing grounds in the world, but action must be taken now to exploit these facilities to the full because others who we now purport to join in Europe will have access to fisheries that up to now we regarded as being exclusively ours. These other people will not have much regard for preservation or conservation, as has been shown by the manner in which they have denuded their own coastal waters. Time for us has practically run out in so far as the exploitation of commercial sea fishing is concerned. But if we are really enthusiastic and believe in the vast potential of the industry and if we only devoted a fraction of the energy and money that we provide rather freely for the attraction of other employment-providing enterprises to fishing, the benefits we could reap would far outweigh anything that we have reaped from other types of industry.
I am sure there are many other Deputies who share my sentiments in this regard and I promise the Parliamentary Secretary that anything he tries to do to extend the industry will have abundant support in the House. This should strengthen his resolve and his opportunity to impress on the Government and particularly on the Minister for Finance, the need for the immediate development of the industry. Money must be provided now; otherwise it may be too late. Either we grasp the opportunities now or we tell the fishermen that the industry will not be expanded and that there will be no break through to this kind of fishing. I hope there will be a positive approach to this question. The development of this industry will be of benefit to the nation as a whole but, in particular, it will be of benefit to the west coast. In this way we could revitalise those areas from which there has been much emigration down through the years and in which there is so much unemployment.
This particular industry could be the saviour of our country. If we continue to allow opportunities of revitalising the West to pass, slowly but surely the paralysis that results from lack of employment and the depression that results from emigration will extend and we will finish up as one big semi-suburban area covering about the area of the old Pale. The day that we reach that stage we will have ceased not only to be a country with any future but we will have ceased to be a nation at all. Scarce as are our opportunities, if we continue to neglect them while at the same time we continue to overbuild, overdevelop and haphazardly develop the east coast by denuding the west coast, we will pay the price in the end. As I see it, neither coast can have any future without the other. Our greatest opportunity lies in the fishing industry, an industry that we can build up without having to go to any part of the world for help. The development of this industry could do more to revitalise the west coast than anything else we have been fiddling at down through the years. Our real hope for that area lies in the development of fishing and also in the development of the tourist industry. Very often the words "Save the West" are trotted out glibly, more as an aspiration rather than an ambition.
I know from experience that the Parliamentary Secretary will have the help, the vast knowledge and the dedication of the staff of the fisheries section in any efforts he may make in this respect. No doubt, also, within this House he will have ample evidence of support to urge the powers that be in the Government to provide the aid that is required urgently. We must think of the development of fisheries as being something greater than we have ever tackled before. The Parliamentary Secretary has the opportunity of becoming the one person to do more than any other towards creating a future for the population along the western seaboard.
