As the House is probably already aware, this matter deals with the lack of harbour and anchorage facilities in the small fishing port in the most northerly part of this country, namely, Glengad or Portaleen. Approximately 100 families derive their livelihood directly or indirectly from fishing. Because of the lack of facilities many of the boats have been smashed at anchorage and it is difficult to know how these people have maintained their fishing tradition. During the years they have made many efforts to try to get the governments of this country to do a job for them so that they could continue in the fishing industry and encourage their families to remain in the industry also, with the hope of some security and prosperity in this remote part of the coast.
My earliest recollection in public life regarding this matter goes back to the early fifties. At that time, through the operations of the Donegal County Council, we tried to secure a grantaided scheme that would do justice to the needs of the people. We succeeded to the extent that there was a full-scale survey and research carried out into the problem. As the marine section of the Office of Public Works saw the matter, it would cost approximately £400,000 and even then they were not prepared to guarantee that such a job would stand up to the very heavy seas with the north-easterly gales to which the port is exposed.
At that time we had the good fortune to have in the county council a county engineer who was most concerned with and who took a personal interest in the case. With his knowledge and wisdom, and as a result of the information obtained from the research carried out by the marine section of the Office of Public Works, the county engineer put forward an alternative which would cost much less money and which would guarantee to safeguard the boats at anchorage in Glengad port. It was a simple formula and one which has been operated in many other parts of the world and in several parts of this country; it was the creation of a basin with lock gates into which the boats would be put. When the gates were closed the boats would be safe regardless of the storm outside.
This matter was pursued by the experts in the marine section but they had their way and nothing was done. In their view—and I am not blaming them on this matter—the great danger was that in a storm if all the boats except one were safely at anchorage, if the fishermen opened the gates to let in the last boat the boats inside would be smashed. During the years since then we have continually argued that the fishermen are nobody's fools in so far as handling their craft is concerned. The north-easterly gales do considerable damage along this coast and they make it impossible to approach the tiny slipway in the port and indeed, would make it impossible to approach the basin that might be created. The idea that the fishermen would open the gates to allow in the foolhardy fisherman who would approach the coast in a storm was never on. It could not be got across to the Department that this would not happen unless there was insanity in the fishermen on shore and greater insanity in the man who was approaching the coast.
Because of this argument we did not get anywhere with the matter for many years. I should add that no boat approaches Glengad if there is a north-easterly gale; the boats head for Lough Foyle or Lough Swilly. They run before the storm on either side of Malin Head. There is no question that they would ever get the mad idea of trying to get in at Glengad; in fact, it is a physical impossibility because they would be smashed to pieces a considerable distance from the shore.
We tried to get this point across. Perhaps if we had had a sympathetic outlook from the Department from the early fifties to the sixties we would have got them to see that this was not a valid argument against the only feasible, safe anchorage that could be created on this stretch of coast. When I was Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries I renewed my efforts regarding this matter. I did not do this lightly or without due consideration. I did it after the fullest investigation and discussion with the technical people not only in the Department but also with the marine section of the Office of Public Works and with the best engineers they have got there. I might add that they have exceedingly good engineers.
A coastal survey had been carried out over a number of years. I was enabled with the permission of the Government in June, 1968, to announce, among other small harbour improvements, the construction of an anchorage basin at Glengad for the benefit of the fishermen. This was the decision and it was not taken by me alone. It was taken with the knowledge and consent of the assembled Government and announced in the House by me. There can be no denying that this commitment was made; there can be no justification for any suggestion or innuendo that the promise in this regard was made by me as an individual, without any thought, or consultation, or without anything to back it up.
In the event, the result has been that nothing was done in Glengad until recently. In the meantime, the promise made in 1968 has been raised time and again, not only by me in this House but by the interested people in Glengad who have made approaches to the Department. The outcome of these approaches has been that they were finally received in a deputation. I did not know of the deputation until after the meeting had taken place. As a result of that deputation we were given to understand that a new concept had been put forward with which the fishermen were in agreement. The new idea was that there would be a widening, a raising and an extension out to sea to the north-east of the existing slip but with no effort whatever being made to provide facilities for the safeguarding of any of the craft that might be at anchorage in heavy weather. No shelter whatever is being contemplated and the general impression seems to be that this is a place where one can do nothing. I refute that idea. I refute also the spending of money as it is now proposed to spend it.
In all sincerity I say to the Minister that, whatever impression he may have got during the discussions with the deputation, on leaving the discussions they understood that they had two choices: (1) that nothing would be done or (2) that they agree to the Minister's proposals. The advice was to put the jetty further out to sea. The fishermen were faced with Hobson's choice. Not only will the money being spent there be wasted but its spending may result in tragedy because my information from the local fishermen is that the work being carried out may cause danger instead of improving the anchorage facilities. It is not merely the question of landing in fair weather that is at issue in this case. It is a question of where the fishermen can anchor their boats safely in the knowledge that the boats will be there when they return for them. That is why the basin is necessary. At the discussions that took place we emphasised the risk of the basin being opened at a time when it would be full of boats in order to allow in latecomers. To open the basin at such a time could never be a reality.
The cost for a deep water inside basin was estimated at £72,000. That is not a huge amount when one has regard to the fact that almost 100 families in the area derive their livelihood from fishing, families who by their persistence down through the years have shown that fishing is and must be their way of life. So determined are these families to derive their livelihood from the sea that in the 1950's they started something which is now acclaimed throughout the country. I refer to a housing project started by them for the purpose of replacing the hovels that many of them were then living in. With the active co-operation of the vocational education committee's manual instructors in those days and with the aid of now deceased colleagues on that committee who provided the materials on credit, the houses were built. These people were the initiators of what are now known as the building construction courses in the vocational system in all rural parts of this country. Surely if people are prepared to help themselves in that way and if they were prepared to accept the loss of four or six boats in a night during stormy weather, State money should be spent in helping them. The availability of harbour facilities at Green-castle, which is one and a half hours steaming from Glengad is not the answer. Surely the close proximity of the second best prime white fishing ground in Europe to Glengad must be sufficient incentive to any Government to spend money usefully in helping people who are prepared to grapple with existing and natural difficulties. If proper facilities are not provided these people cannot be expected to pursue fishing any longer.
I had long discussions on the situation with the technical people who were well qualified to show the fallacy or otherwise of what was contemplated. What was proposed by the county engineer in Donegal some years ago is the only answer to the problem in Glengad. The conclusion reached was backed by the Government at the time and an authorised statement by the Government was made by me in this House. The proposals included not only the work at Glengad but improvements also at Moville, at Fanny's Bay, at Burton-port, Killala and some other places, including some further down the west coast. The only one of those jobs that was proceeded with with any speed was at Killala. The wall at Moville has been relegated to the other side of the headland—at whose decision I do not know. That harbour should be considered again also because since it is on the wrong side it may not serve the purpose which it was intended to serve.
To get back to the Glengad pier— the Minister for Finance of the day was reluctant to sanction the project in the year that followed but he was constrained to do so in the following year. That following year saw the departure not only of him but of myself also and the departure of the prospect of the basin at Glengad. Without endeavouring in any way to make any sort of personal issue of this matter, I ask the Minister whether it is fair to say that if I were still in Fisheries, the work at Glengad would have been completed as was promised in 1968? Is it not really a matter of turning back the clock and making it appear that what I said in 1968 was untrue, that if the job had been proceeded with the credit would have gone to me for it and that, therefore, it was decided to delay it for a while, re-introduce it later and give somebody else the credit for it? I could not care less who gets the credit for it. I do not want any credit for it. I have many good friends in the area. I get votes there but if I never got a vote there I would still maintain that this is a job that should be done. I have often compared it with Valentia Island in respect of which I had the pleasure of doing something.
Unless this job is executed in the manner in which it was proposed it will not serve the purpose for which it was intended and the money that the Minister has now embarked on spending there will be wasted. I appeal to the Minister to stop at this stage and reconsider the matter. The real problem here is the smashing of boats when at anchor. It should be remembered that no Glengad boat has ever been lost at sea. It is while they were anchored at night that they were smashed.
