asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the action he is taking to secure a resumption of work in the fishing industry in view of the disastrous effects each day's stoppage is having on the livelihood of fishermen and the fish trade generally.
Private Notice Question: - Fishing Industry Dispute.
I would like to point out that the present interruption of activities in the fishing industry is the direct result of the actions which have been taken by the fishermen and can only be put right by the fishermen discontinuing these actions. If they feel that further discussion of their problems would be useful, I will be glad to meet them.
Has this not come about because the Parliamentary Secretary has refused to give any satisfaction to the fishermen on the various points they brought before him on a number of occasions? Is it not a fact that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has refused to meet the fishermen?
Since I became Parliamentary Secretary two years ago I met the fishermen on numerous occasions and discussed their problems with them. I gave them all the help and assistance possible. I emphasised the desirability of the involvement of the fishermen, BIM and the Department in the formulation of policy. So far as the position generally is concerned, the aids made available to our fishermen compare more than favourably with aids made available by any other country. Despite the difficulties which beset the economy during the last two years and as evidence of the Government's confidence in the industry the amounts provided by the Exchequer increased from £4,115,000 to £7,940,000. That was for fisheries generally. Of this amount £7,103,000 is being expended on sea fisheries.
The House will appreciate that we have practically doubled the amount for fisheries; we have increased it by more than £3 million. Taking into account inflation, and any other items Deputies wish to bring in, it can be said that this Government stood firmly and loyally by the fishermen. That being the case, we are very disappointed that the fishermen took the action they did this week with the disruption of public facilities. I do not think the action was warranted.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary stating that the claims of the fishermen are not justified? If the Government are prepared to meet the fishermen, what are they prepared to meet them on? The fishermen have already stated their case.
For three hours last Tuesday with senior officers of my Department I discussed all aspects of the industry with representatives of the fishermen. This was a most comprehensive discussion which covered all aspects of the industry. I cannot see what grievance, if any, they can have, so far as the Department are concerned. We had discussions with representatives of the organisation in May, 1974, and they indicated then that they were anxious to make a claim for a subsidy towards the cost of increase in fuel prices. I informed them that if such a claim was to be presented it would have to be statistically presented with proper accountancy of their profitability and returns of their profit and loss accounts. I am sure the Deputy appreciates that neither a Minister nor a Parliamentary Secretary——
According to the Parliamentary Secretary, the fishermen are making too much money.
We have indicated by the amount of money we have provided that we have increased the amount made available for fisheries from the time Fianna Fáil were in office by more than 90 per cent. This helped increase the standard of living of the fishermen and helped them——
The fishermen would much prefer to be out fishing and not carrying on with the type of protest they have to make because the Parliamentary Secretary has decided to ignore them.
The Deputy must cease the interruptions. The interruptions are leading to disorder and are unnecessary.
The Chair has to take the Parliamentary Secretary off the hook but he will be on another hook before long.
I am not on any hook and there is no need for the Ceann Comhairle or anybody else to take me off any hook.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that we forced him to put more money into the industry because the Book of Estimates showed there was a reduction? It was only a second thought on the part of the Government to allocate this extra money. Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that any extra money provided is barely sufficient to meet the development that has been in progress for years? There has been a progressive policy of development in train in this industry and it has nothing to do with the fishermen's day-to-day profits or losses. Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that in this House last week he castigated the fishermen when replying to questions by pointing out that unless they produced audited figures and definite accounts he would have nothing further to do with them?
That statement is incorrect. I would use the term that it was a lie but the Ceann Comhairle would ask me to withdraw it.
The Parliamentary Secretary did make that statement.
I can claim that I have as great an interest as, if not a greater interest than, Deputy Brennan or any other Deputy, in fishermen. So far as the availability of money is concerned, we have increased in the last two years the amount allocated to this industry by more than 90 per cent. These figures are available in the Department.
The Parliamentary Secretary has statisticians available to him but he expects the fishermen to employ some.
Despite the high price of money our loan subsidisation——
And low price of fish.
Grants will not feed families.
I am sure that Deputy Cunningham would like to see the price of fish dropping but, unfortunately, for him it is now on the increase and we all welcome that. I remember how gleeful Members on the other side were when there was a fall in cattle prices last year and I am sure the same position applies now.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is serious when he says that he has been meeting the fishermen and is prepared to meet them again against the background of his reply to the question which was that what is happening at the moment is as a direct result of the fishermen themselves? Is the Parliamentary Secretary indicating that the import of fish from outside countries is the result of the action of the fishermen? Is the Parliamentary Secretary also saying that the cost of fuel is in any way the direct result of the fishermen? Is he saying that the clamour and justifiable demand for an extended fishery limit is their fault? Is he saying that the total lack of protection in an overall sense is their fault in so far as their livelihood is concerned? Is he saying that this is so? He wants to talk to them. Yet he says he is giving them more than anybody else——
The short answer to that is that I have said nothing such as the Deputy asserted in the House. We are interested in fishery limits; we are interested in the formulation of a proper marketing system, and all of this was neglected by Fianna Fáil.
(Interruptions.)
The Parliamentary Secretary is blaming the fishermen today and Fianna Fáil yesterday.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
This is accepted in the case made to me by the fishermen—they agree that their industry was neglected by the previous Government; the neglect covers a period of up to 15 years, according to their own statements.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
If the House wants further information, I shall give it. I have not dealt with what we are actually giving the fishermen today who are anxious to buy a boat and move into this industry——
(Interruptions.)
Compare it with what he gets in Britain, Belgium, France, Holland, Germany or any other EEC country.
(Interruptions.)
Is the Parliamentary Secretary going to stop fish imports?
(Interruptions.)
Order. Deputy Gallagher also gave——
Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if I heard him say that he was prepared, even now, to meet a deputation from the fishermen this afternoon. Is that correct?
Of course it is correct.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that he will be accompanied by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach at such a meeting?
I am giving no such undertaking. Approaches have been made to me through other Members of this House and I have indicated my willingness to meet the fishermen at any time they require to meet me. They know that themselves.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the replies which he gave during the course of the interview he had with them last week, whether the information he gave them on that occasion was the considered decision of the Government or whether it was his considered decision as Parliamentary Secretary?
It was my considered decision, taken in conjunction with the officers of my Department. I have been delegated authority by the Government to deal with fisheries. I am doing that job and shall continue to do so until that delegation is taken from me.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be honest enough to admit to this House, as one who was himself a Parliamentary Secretary on a former occasion and who well knows the very limited power a Parliamentary Secretary has——
A question, Deputy.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary be honest enough to admit to this House and to the fishermen that he in that appointment does not have the type of power to make decisions which would meet the requirements of the fishermen, that he should be accompanied by his own Minister, the Minister for Finance, or the Taoiseach who should, up to now, have shown much greater interest in the welfare and well-being of the fishermen——
The Deputy is now making a speech.
——and who must accept that they would not have gone to such lengths were the position not so bad, with a 400 per cent increase in oil——
This is geting out of hand. I must ask Deputy Gallagher——
——a 100 per cent increase in the cost of boats——
Deputy Molloy, please resume your seat.
Could I ask the Taoiseach, who is sitting with his head bowed——
Deputy Molloy, please resume your seat. I want to put a question to Deputy Gallagher at this stage. He was good enough to give me notice that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 30. Is he proceeding with this?
Yes.
In that case——
(Interruptions.)
——there will be a debate.
Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware that when one orders Dublin Bay prawns one is served South American shrimps and what the Minister intends doing about that?
One final and very short question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Can we take it from the Parliamentary Secretary, despite what he said about blaming the fishermen——
I am not blaming the fishermen.
If the Parliamentary Secretary did not say that, that is all right. Is there any point in the fishermen meeting the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of what he has been saying here today? That is all I want to know.
This is a matter for the fishermen.
(Interruptions.)
Order. May I ask Deputy Gallagher to put the question formally to me?
(Interruptions.)
I am sure the vast majority of the fishermen are quite satisfied.
Order. Deputy Gallagher.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Denis Gallagher.
I request leave to move the adjournment of the Dáil today, under Standing Order 30, for the purpose of discussing the following matter: the present dispute in the fishing industry.
I have considered the Deputy's request and I am satisfied that it conforms to Standing Order No. 30, as a specific and important matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration. I must now ask that the Members supporting the request rise in their places.
Deputies rose in their places.
The request is granted. The motion will be taken at 9 p.m. until 10.30 this evening, if that is satisfactory, or unless the Dáil appoint another time for it.