Deputy Gallagher has been granted leave to move the adjournment of the Dáil for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration, that is, the present dispute in the fishing industry. The motion that the Deputy moves, therefore, is: "That the Dáil do now adjourn".
Adjournment Debate: Standing Order 30. - Fishing Industry Dispute.
I move the adjournment of the Dáil in order to deal with this important matter. I am grateful to you for giving this opportunity to me, to the people on this side of the House and, indeed, to the fishermen, who are so much involved in these tragic circumstances, to debate this matter. It is deplorable that the fishermen find themselves in a position where they have to take this rather drastic action. Indeed, knowing fishermen, I can honestly say they are no way violent. This was brought on them by the indecision of the Government in relation to the whole fishing industry.
It is regrettable that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, as head of this very important Department, should use such strong language in relation to the action of the fishermen. In the two years I have been in this House I think his statements of the past few days are the only ones I have heard him making in relation to the fishing industry. It is rather sad to see that he used such strong language against the fishermen. I should like to quote from the newspapers what he said: "They have gone crazy. They do not know when to stop. I never saw this side of them before. They are not acting sensibly." Statements of this kind show a lack of responsibility on the part of the Minister and would seem to be made with the intention of showing the fishermen as an irresponsible group who do not care how they behave.
I hope, for the benefit of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the House, to clear the air on this matter and let the nation see who these crazy people are. First of all, it is important to understand that for the first time in years fishermen, through their own organisation, the Irish Fishermen's Organisation, speak with one voice. Any decisions arrived at have been taken in a rational, democratic fashion. In the past you had fragmentation with a number of groups and organisations speaking on behalf of the fishermen but that is no longer true. Through the Federation of Irish Fishing Co-operatives and the various organisations, which were working until now in the interests of fishermen, they now speak with one voice. They are a responsible, active organisation working on behalf of fishermen. Through the initiative of the IAOS a number of years ago a full time secretary had been employed, who acts on behalf of the fishermen's organisation and who devotes his time entirely to fishing interests.
Some of these people, apart from the present agitation, have got together various times in the past few years to demand their rights and to protect their interests. They produced plans and policies many of which might be accepted as part of a blueprint for the fishing industry. These people could hardly be described as crazy when they went to Brussels to fight against the question of equal access. There was nothing irresponsible about a recent seminar which they held, where they clearly stated their views and gave a very clear indication of what was necessary in this industry. Their handling of this seminar was on a par with anything I saw produced here. The standard of debate was high and the contributions by the fishermen were well researched. They showed foresight and a keen interest in the development of this very important industry.
At the seminar the chairman read a very fine paper giving a clear indication of what the Irish Fishermen's Organisation saw as necessary in the development of this vital industry. He listed a number of points such as finance, the restructuring of the fishing fleet, education, marketing, shore facilities, conservation and fishing limits, the potential of the industry and marine rescue services. It is against this background that the Irish Fishermen's Organisation met the Parliamentary Secretary and made certain demands in relation to the industry. I think I have clearly indicated that this group acted in a responsible way and that we should have a withdrawal by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries of his description of the fishermen. The demands they made to the Parliamentary Secretary are very reasonable and I cannot see how they can be turned down by any responsible Government. I find it very hard to understand why the fishermen have been cold shouldered in the way they have been in the past few weeks.
They asked for an overall plan for fisheries, a ministry, the extension of our fishing limits. They asked that the Government should back Britain on the renegotiation of sections 4 and 5 of our entry into the EEC and for restrictions on the importation of fish from countries outside the Common Market group. I do not see anything wrong in their demands. An overall plan for the fishing industry is necessary. We have not made the progress we should be making in the industry. While a good deal of money has been spent down the years and loan facilities have been made available to fishermen for the purchase of boats and gear and also for various facilities, the extension of ports and so on, a great deal more is necessary. It is necessary to provide better facilities, to increase the size of boats, to improve piers and harbours and also to provide suitable port facilities for fish processing and so on. These are some of the things which fishermen have been demanding. They want to know exactly where the Government are going and what they propose to do about these matters.
One grievance the fishermen have relates to the Law of the Sea Conference. They have demanded that we fight for a 50-mile fishing limit, and they have asked to be represented at the talks on this matter. The fishermen did not expect that they themselves should be allowed to contribute to the debate but that at least there would be some consultation with their group and that they would get some recognition in relation to this very important matter. Their counterparts in Britain and other countries, I understand, are given this facility and have attended the various conferences on the extension of the limits, and they are quite happy to be able to participate and to join with the various delegations dealing with the matter.
Our fishermen have been ignored completely, have been given no facility at all. They do not know what is happening. They have not the slightest notion of what proposals our Government are making. This causes a great deal of unrest in the organisation. One can understand this unrest, because our fish is being taken away by foreign trawlers day after day. Day after day one can see these large boats fishing in huge numbers off our coast using sophisticated gear and carrying off our rich harvest. Unless some action is taken very quickly, it will not be worthwhile spending any money on a fishing fleet here in the near future. The fish will not be there. The way it is being taken out at the moment is frightening, and it is not being caught for human consumption. Some figures I saw recently indicated that 35 per cent of the fish landings in Norway were used for industrial purposes. It is no wonder our fishermen show concern. It is a well-known fact that fishermen in the north of Scotland and particularly in the Shetland Islands have been showing concern about this quite recently, because the Norwegians are moving in on their territory, and they are now moving down along our coast and taking off these large catches.
Another factor in all this has been the indecision of the Government in relation to the industry. In the Book of Estimates for 1975 a reduction of 5 per cent was shown in the Estimate for Fisheries. When one takes inflation into account, this represents a reduction of 25 per cent. Due to pressure from this side of the House the Minister for Finance, in introducing his budget, made some extra money available which helped to keep the people in the boat-building industry happy anyway. At the time a very strong case was made in order to ensure that funds would be made available to keep the thousand or so people involved in the boat-building industry at work. Unfortunately, the Government placed severe restrictions on the way the extra money could be expended: only a person who wants to buy a new boat can now avail of a loan from Bord Iascaigh Mhara. People who want to buy secondhand boats are finding it very hard to get a loan. People who are purchasing boats or are about to purchase boats do not know where they stand. We are led to believe that the loan interest of 4 per cent which has been in operation for so long and which has helped our fishermen so much down the years is now being dispensed with. Fishermen do not know what they will be asked to pay in the future, whether it will be 5 per cent, 10 per cent or even the current bank rates of 14 or 15 per cent.
Considering that the industry employs 5,500 full-time fishermen and about 4,000 part-time fishermen, and that there are about 2,000 engaged in processing and in the region of 1,000 working in boat-building, I think we deserve better treatment than this from the Government and from the Parliamentary Secretary. There is a high investment in fishing. The fishermen themselves have shown their confidence in the industry by investing in larger boats. The fact that the larger boats can cost as much as £500,000 and that there are fishermen who are prepared to spend this figure, shows that they have the confidence, the ability and the skill to go into the industry and expand as they should be doing.
Against that background, I believe the fishermen have been very harshly treated, that they deserve better. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government should review the whole position in the hope that the action which the fishermen have been forced to take will be brought to an end. The fishermen regret this action. They are the losers whichever way one looks at the situation because they have to forego their fishing activities. However, the effort is an organised one. The men on the east coast have the full support of those on the south and west coasts as has been shown during the past few days. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will ensure that the demands of the fishermen are met, that market structures are improved, that restrictions are put on the imports of fish from outside the country, that oil subsidies are paid to the fishermen and that, generally, a fair deal will be given to the fishermen in their demands.
At the outset, perhaps you can inform me, a Cheann Comhairle, as to the time allowed for each speaker in this debate. Has there been any agreement in this regard?
Yes—roughly 15 minutes for speeches, with the Parliamentary Secretary being given 30 minutes.
I understood that we were to have the first half hour, that we would be followed by the Parliamentary Secretary and that we would be given a half hour in which to reply.
I can only say that whatever arrangement there was between the Government and Opposition sides, the Chair has an obligation to protect the rights of minorities in the House and, therefore, must call Deputy Blaney.
The best protected minority in Ireland.
This is an unusual situation in that it is the first time that this Standing Order was invoked to deal with a matter of urgent public interest. We gave prior notice of how we had allocated the time. Ten or 12 different speakers were anxious to contribute but time did not permit of that so we made the best arrangement possible. We notified you of that arrangement which was that two speakers from this party would open the debate followed by the Government party coming in for half an hour and two speakers from this party concluding, with 15 minutes each. You have now upset that arrangement.
The Deputy appreciates that there was no regard in that arrangement for independent voices in the House—the rights of the minority. In an arrangement like this all points of view must be taken into account.
If Deputy Sheridan arrives, will he be given the same opportunity?
Are minorities to be considered in proportion to their numbers?
If there has been an arrangement of the type suggested, I do not mind allowing another speaker in now so long as I can intervene later but this is a matter for the Chair.
According to the arrangement, the Deputy would not get an opportunity to speak. The position was that the Opposition Deputies would take up the hour— presumably, 15 minutes each—and that the Parliamentary Secretary would have half an hour. Therefore, there was no scope in the arrangement to permit an independent Deputy to intervene in the debate.
What were the names on the motion before the House?
The motion is in the name of Deputy Gallagher.
Surely it has been a standing practice that every Deputy, irrespective of what may be his affiliation, has certain rights and privileges in regard to speaking in Parliament. In my long association with this House I have not known of any occasion on which there was an agreement which excluded any particular Deputy or Deputies.
That is why I called Deputy Blaney.
May I point out that there was full agreement between the Whips on the use of the time available? If there is to be a departure from that agreement, I take it that at least portion of the time allocated to the Government will be taken up by the independent voice in the House.
Hear, hear.
The Chair will not be put in that position.
The position is that the Whips reached agreement and we should stand over that.
I can only enforce an order made by the House. There is no such order before me but, for the record, I should say that what has been submitted to me by the Whips, Deputies Browne and Kelly, is that in the first half hour Deputies Gallagher and R.P. Burke would speak, presumably for 15 minutes each, that the Parliamentary Secretary would intervene for 30 minutes, from 9.30 to 10 p.m. and that Deputies Molloy and Brennan would speak from 10 to 10.30 p.m., again, presumably for 15 minutes each.
That arrangement would appear to have gone by the board.
Despite that arrangement the Chair has an obligation and a particular duty to facilitate and to protect the voices of minorities in the House.
All I can do at this stage is to ask that our speakers be called at 10 p.m. It is not my wish to keep anybody out of the debate.
Is Deputy Blaney not a Member of the House?
I presume that if Deputy Sheridan arrives he will be facilitated also?
Certainly he must be considered.
Fianna Fáil, with 68 Members, do not matter.
The Chair has now, as in the past, a particular obligation to protect the rights of minorities in this House and will continue to do so. Deputy Blaney.
I am sorry that we should have wasted five minutes on having this matter cleared up. May I tender my thanks to the Chair for his concern and interest? This has ensured that the club—the two sides of the House—shall not monopolise the entire hour and a half.
I endorse practically every word that was said by the mover of the motion, Deputy Gallagher. In regard to the demands of the fishermen there is nothing being sought to which they would not seem to be fully entitled. These people have been very patient when one considers the bad treatment they have received whether this was by reason of circumstances or by lack of action on the part of the Government, especially in the recent past.
I do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with the terms of the reply he gave today when asked about the present situation which has resulted in a blockade of some of our ports. I am only sorry that all the ports have not been blockaded. This action has resulted in the Government taking note for the first time of the situation that obtains in the fishing industry. In his reply today the Parliamentary Secretary said that what was going on and any difficulties and sacrifices which were being experienced by the fishermen were entirely of their own making. I am paraphrasing in the briefest way possible what I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say. With his knowledge of the fishermen and their problems he could not hold that attitude personally.
I would be prepared to support in every way possible the demands that are being made. Take, for instance, the question of imports. Why should imports be allowed to upset the fishing industry, an industry into which has been put a considerable amount of public money and in which not only the fishermen but the general public and the taxpayer have much interest? It is ridiculous to fall back on the excuse that these matters are decided outside. Other members of the EEC do what suits their people and not what suits the Community. They fight their case afterwards but they take their action when it has to be taken. In this case I suggest that our unions who handle imports of every kind note that our fishermen and our fishing industry is being hurt by imports of fish. They should see to it, in the absence of any Government action, that these imports are not handled and, therefore, are not able to come here. In this way the Government could absolve themselves, wash their hands of the situation, but still claim they are good boys in maintatining and keeping within the EEC rules.
There is also the question of fuel and the cost to our fishing fleet. I cannot see why part of the £30 million to £50 million which the Government are raking off, allegedly on the basis of helping to conserve and to reduce our consumption of oil, cannot be directed towards needy cases, such as subsidising fuel for our fishermen. They are engaged in an industry which is still in its infancy despite the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary and others tell us how lively it has been, how it has been progressing over the years as a result of percentage increases in money allocated. I do not dispute these increases but I am of the opinion—I expressed this view when in Government—that we are treating our fishery potential with scant regard and as if we did not believe that a potential exists. We are not realistically approaching the overall plan the fishermen are asking for. It is commonsense in an industry with the colossal potential fishing has here, particularly relating to the west and north-west coasts where employment is so badly needed, that we should have an overall plan. Such a plan should have been prepared years ago and should concern development in future years.
The attitude of those in the Fisheries Division of the Department —whether it is a Parliamentary Secretary or a Minister who is involved does not matter a scrap—does not really arise. It is the attitude of the Government, who after all discharge the money to that Department, that will determine the progress to be made. In order to have proper progress it is necessary to have an overall workable plan. If this is not prepared in the next seven years and if we do not make big strides in that direction then all the talk about what may be renegotiated for the post-1982 era will not matter because we will not be in the strong position we should be with an ocean-going fleet. We will not be in a position to say in any discussions or renegotiations that we may have with the EEC that we want extended limits, or that we are prepared to fish and protect those limits. If we are not prepared and geared to do these things then hollow and empty will be our arguments with the EEC in trying to get anything better than what we have tentatively been given for the intervening years.
The plan must take three things into account. I am not sure which comes first but all three must basically come together. We need to have adequate training so that we will have the fishermen available. We must have adequate anchorage, safe harbours and onshore facilities to process to the greatest degree the catches of our fishermen. Above all we must have a proper marketing arrangement to ensure, unlike the present one which may have been improved by co-operatives but is not adequate, that the fishermen do not finish up getting the least while the consumer pays the most.
The Parliamentary Secretary at Question Time today indicated that our fishermen were getting as much as others by way of assistance. He quoted a figure of £7 million as against £4 million some years ago. Surely this is not the method of measuring what we are doing for the fishing industry. This is the fallacy perpetrated down the years, that if we can quote a percentage increase high enough it should be sufficient to answer all the criticism. However, this is hollow and empty without any planning for the future. What about the harbours that have not been developed and for which there are plans? What about the onshore facilities that are needed more every day but are not being provided? What about the additional boat building capacity that is needed here instead of sending our money outside because we cannot produce the boats in sufficient quantities or on time? These are basics that should be contained within and provided for in any plan the Fisheries Division and the Government might embark upon. These things are essential if we are to have any sort of proper planning, development, a vast improvement in the intake of fish, in the employment in the fishing industry and the overall prosperity of the country which could come from the potential which lies off our coast, particularly off the west and north-west.
We must also keep in mind that anything we do by way of seeking increased limits for our own use or shared use with other members of the EEC must be done in conjunction with the provision of adequate means of protection and not as at present. We all know that at present, and in the past, by the time our fishery patrol vessel arrived in areas where offending trawlers were fishing those offending trawlers were outside the limit looking on. As soon as the patrol left they returned to the fishing grounds. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of this. I am not criticising him in this regard: I sympathise with him in that there is little he can do about it unless there is a change within the Government from the point of view of providing finance. The Government should prepare a development plan of a progressive nature that will be accelerated in the next five years so that we can make some sense in so far as our demands for renegotiation with the EEC are concerned.
In regard to the trotting out of the percentage increase in money provided I should like to know how much of that money has found its way back to the crews. It should be remembered that without these crews no boat could go to sea. Do the crews benefit from any of the extra money provided by the Government? How much of the £7 million went towards fleet expansion and how much of that expanded fleet was purchased abroad and at what cost? How much of it was purchased at home? Do we give way to the idea that so long as we can trot out a big increase in the total capital provided, no matter how it may be dragged out of the Minister for Finance in the budget, everything in the garden is rosy? If any proof is needed the fishermen, by their own self-sacrifice and protests which have brought about a situation whereby they are losing heavily as a result of being tied up, have given that proof. Their livelihood depends on them going to sea but they are not fishing at present. They are not doing this frivolously, they are doing it as a last resort to bring their grievances to the notice of this House and the Government.
The Chair appeals to the Deputy, having spoken on this matter, he might allow other Members to contribute.
I will do that in a short time. The Parliamentary Secretary should take into account what the protest is all about. He should consider what those who are participating in the protest are losing. Why have those involved in the protest gone to the extreme they have if they have not good reason for doing so? They found they could not find their way through to any successful conclusion by way of discussion with him unless they put the screws on in this way. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary must consider. He should not disregard the sacrifices being made by these people. They would not have been driven to it were it not for the extreme circumstance obtaining. They felt his hand should and must be strengthened, as it is now. He should welcome the fact—as indeed I would welcome it were I in his position now —that the fishermen are organised right round the coast. They are prepared to stand together, to make their protest together and to make themselves heard together. With that whip then, I say to the Parliamentary Secretary—he may trot out what figures he likes for last year, this year or next year but he can tell the Government of the confrontation he has had and back up what I know he believes himself—that we have not even begun to scratch the potential that is our fishing industry and we will get nowhere until the fishermen's demands for an overall plan has been conceded, thought out and put into operation. In the interim, there must be no imports of fish to the detriment of our fishermen and fuel costs should be subsidised out of the rake-off the Government are taking from the rest of us. We would not mind were it put to that use. In the overall, the extension of our limit must be considered, must be pressed. We must, for the very sake of the livelihood and the future of our fishing fleet, have an extended fishery limit, but we must be shown to be capable of protecting it. Again, the Government enters into it, the Minister for Defence or whoever is responsible. In respect of all of these things I say the Parliamentary Secretary now has something on which to work which he never had before. The fishermen are organised. I hope they remain that way and, if necessary, block more and more ports until the Government see reason.
We have not even begun to scratch the potential of the fishery industry. That is the statement we have just heard from Deputy Blaney. One would think this Government was in office for a number of years——
The Parliamentary Secretary should not start that one now.
——and that Deputy Blaney never had anything to do with fishery development. Deputy Blaney was Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries for a number of years and, if the potential has not even been scratched in 1975, I am sure he did no scratching at all during the years he was the Minister.
I got something done.
So much for scratching.
The Parliamentary Secretary should answer the motion.
I am answering the motion. Talking about scratching the potential was an eye-opener so far as the Deputy was concerned, asking that people continue to break the law in the irresponsible fashion in which Deputy Blaney addressed himself——
So it is irresponsible for the fishermen to take any action at all.
The Parliamentary Secretary.
——to that aspect of the question.
That is absolutely unfair and unfounded.
On a point of information, might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, through the Chair, when he proposes to conclude?
I did not interrupt anybody.
Might I ask through the Chair when he proposes to conclude?
In half an hour.
The Parliamentary Secretary has half an hour, by agreement.
In half an hour?
The Parliamentary Secretary.
Or 10.15.
The Parliamentary Secretary has no such time. He must take the reduction we suffered.
No doubt you will be reducing my time.
If the Chair has the right to upset an arrangement made in one respect he has got to upset it in respect of another part of the same agreement. In other words he has to allow some of the——
Hear, hear.
May I, by way of explanation—which may be of some assistance—say that a formal agreement was reached between the Government side and the Opposition, that the Opposition would have one full hour of the one-and-a-half-hours and that a Government spokesman would be allowed half an hour during the course of the debate to put the Government's view? We reached that agreement and we are going to honour it. We are not responsible for the interruptions of Deputy Blaney.
(Interruptions.)
The Parliamentary Secretary. The Chair is not bound by private arrangements.
That is the last time we will make that kind of an arrangement.
I will not refer again to Deputy Blaney's statement. Even though he is now an Independent Member of the Dáil and only one voice here, he has as much right to express his views as has any other Member. But his statement was contradictory.
The Parliamentary Secretary should answer the motion.
The attitude of the Government, Deputy Blaney said, is determined by the amount of money made available for the industry——
To meet commitments already entered into.
Deputy Blaney says then, in another voice: do not tell us anything about figures. Why should not I talk about figures? Deputy Blaney mentioned that the attitude of the Government is determined by the amount of money made available. I want to record for about the sixth time in the last few weeks that if Deputy Blaney wants to determine the attitude of the Government, I shall give him the figures.
The last year Fianna Fáil were in office the amount provided was £4,150,000. In the current year the amount is £7,940,000, or £3,790,000 more than in 1972-73. Therefore, I am sure that will answer Deputy Blaney's point about determining the attitude of the Government.
It answers nothing.
It would not even buy half a dozen boats.
(Interruptions.)
The speaker should be allowed to continue without interruption.
(Interruptions.)
Interruptions are disorderly.
Replying further to comments by Deputy Blaney, of course the position is that we found the industry in a bad state. I agree with the fishermen in their assertions that the industry was neglected over a lengthy period. We did find a position obtaining in regard to the matters mentioned by Deputy Gallagher—harbour development, so vital to the development of the industry and about which the last Government were exceptionally remiss.
Oh boy!
So far as that field of activity was concerned I merely take up the time of the House to illustrate what was actually happening.
(Interruptions.)
Here is what was happening in this respect——
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputies please allow the Parliamentary Secretary to continue without interruption?
I did not interrupt anybody and I intend making my statement without interruption. I would welcome interruptions were the time unlimited. I will tell the fishermen of the country what Fianna Fáil were doing so far as they were concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary should tell us what he is going to do for them.
In their last four years in office, in respect of one year 66 per cent of the money for harbour development went back to the Exchequer. They were just fooling the fishermen in providing so much money for fishery development, or harbour development. The next year the figure was 47 per cent; there was another 48 per cent and yet in a further year 40 per cent. So much for Fianna Fáil's harbour development and their interest in fishery development generally.
(Interruptions.)
Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary knows the reason for that.
The Parliamentary Secretary.
When this Government came to power and I was assigned this office I emphasised the desirability of involvement if we were to develop this industry. I made it quite clear that every man associated with the industry at any level, any fisherman, whether skipper or crew member, had the right to submit suggestions for approval to me personally or to my office and that such suggestions would be examined, the same practice percolating down through the Department irrespective of the standing of any official within the Department's service. That was our anxiety, to get everybody associated with the industry into one group to push forward.
Mention has been made of the appointment of a development officer. We made £15,000 available to the IAOU to help provide an organisation. We have emphasised the desirabilty and the need for an organisation which could speak for the fishermen, representatives of which could come along to the Department and discuss proposals, helping them to formulate policies.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that that arrangement was there before he took office?
Yes.
Why make a point of it? Why try to bluff the House?
I know what Fianna Fáil are trying to do. Their fortunes are declining and they are trying to get a few votes.
Tell us about the fishermen's demands.
Tell us what the fishermen are trying to do.
Interruptions should not be indulged in.
While I regret and deplore the present action of the fishermen's representatives——
That is very decent of the Parliamentary Secretary.
——I did not adopt the attitude adopted by Fianna Fáil when they were in power and we had another section of our people sitting down in Merrion Street outside the Department and they were more or less told: "Go to hell. We will not talk to you." I did not adopt the high-handed attitude which was adopted by Fianna Fáil. In fact, we had a very friendly and amicable discussion with the fishermen's representatives today. I have not the slightest doubt, any more than I had last Tuesday, that we will be able to solve any problems which have arisen, and solve them without the help of you people. While saying that I welcome co-operation from all sides.
Thank you very much.
I regard Deputy Gallagher as a man of the highest integrity. Any contribution he makes here is made in a helpful and sincere manner.
Do not mind the plamás.
(Interruptions.)
I have a certain respect for Deputy Blaney. He could have made some improvements when he was in charge of fisheries. That is a long time ago and perhaps some day he may come back here. You never know. My aim, and the aim of the National Coalition Government as evidenced by the vast improvements and increases in the amounts of money made available for this industry, is to help fishermen in every way and to develop the industry in every way possible.
I know this is a risk industry in which you can have a fat time or a lean time. From my own information in West Cork, and as a person living in a seaside fishing town where people have to get up early and move out into the Atlantic to get their bread and butter from it, I am aware of the difficulties and I appreciate them. I mentioned these difficulties several times in the House during my membership over the past 24 years. I did not start talking about fisheries when I was assigned to this post. I always saw the need for involvement. I preached from the Opposition benches that fishermen should be better organised, that they should be treated with more courtesy and more civility, and that more attention should be paid to them by the powers that be.
Since the wheel has turned I have tried to put that type of policy into practice. I think the fishermen and their representatives will appreciate that, during the two years in which I have been in office, I have met groups of fishermen not only here in Dublin but in their own coastal towns on many occasions. Every fisherman, irrespective of whether he is a skipper or a crewman and, indeed, those outside the industry but anxious about it such as processors and others, always have the right to come to the Department and that right will be observed during my time in this office, be it long or short.
Has the Parliamentary Secretary the right to go to the Minister for Finance and say: "I want money".
He will get a lot more than Deputy Cunningham ever got.
I am sure this discussion is not meant to be helpful. The fishermen understand the position. We had full and frank discussions this very evening. They know they can come to see me any time they wish. They know the claims they make are getting the attention they deserve. I sympathise with them. At the end of 1974 and in the early part of 1975 prices were lean. I am very pleased that prices are now moving upwards. That is what we like to see. Some of you people were very disappointed when cattle prices moved up.
I do not want to take up too much time trotting out figures relating to the aids we are giving to this industry at present. I mentioned them on a number of occasions during the past two weeks. I said publicly and privately in discussions I had with Deputies and fishermen that our aids to the industry, despite the fact that we are a small country and despite the world-wide economic recession of the past few years, compare more than favourably with those in any other country in the world, excluding the EEC.
Banning fish imports will not cost anything.
Deputy Cunningham talks about the importation of fish. That is governed by regulations made on our entry to the EEC.
From third countries.
Fianna Fáil negotiated the negotiations. I am not finding fault with them but imports of fish other than canned fish do not pose a great problem. The figure is between £46,000 to £48,000 annually. The total value of all fish imports for the period January to September —this will give the House an idea of the position, because when I stand up here I try to impart as much information as I can and as concisely as I can do so——
The Parliamentary Secretary is an old fool.
The total value of all fish imports for the period January to September, 1974, from all sources was £2.6 million; £1.65 million worth from the EEC and £.95 million from third countries. Third country imports consisted mainly of canned fish. As this was mentioned in the memorandum submitted by the organisation and as it was mentioned by Deputy Gallagher and Deputy Blaney, that is the position. I used to voice objections to the importation of fish but the regulations now provide the we must now allow importation. Apart from canned fish the money involved is relatively small being only £46,000 to £48,000. We have no money no more than Fianna Fáil had except what we get from the taxpayers' pockets. It does not fall down from heaven. There has not been manna for the past four thousand years. We have to take money from the taxpayers, and the National Coalition Government and the Minister for Finance are concerned to see that all the money we get is usefully and gainfully employed. Each industry is being dealt with on its merits. In so far as the Fishery Vote is concerned, I have no fault to find with the Minister for Finance.
The Parliamentary Secretary is lucky.
I am very lucky. I have £3,790,000 more than what my predecessor had in 1972-73. Our aims are the best in the world. A small country, despite the recession, we provide 25 per cent grants for boats——
Are we to get the fuel subsidy? It is as simple as that.
——a marked increase. We are paying 70 per cent of interest rates on loan charges. When loan charges were introduced the procedure was two to one, the applicants paid two-thirds of the interest charges and the Government paid one-third. The present position is that we pay seven-tenths and the applicant pays only three-tenths. As well, the 10 per cent subsidy continues where a boat owner is in a position to repay his BIM loan within the ten-year period.
Nobody is disputing that. All this is old hat. It has been there for years.
I am dealing with the benefits available for applicants for boats. We are all the time trying to get as much money as we can from our EEC membership. Our EEC representatives are always fighting to get the last penny, irrespective of the industries concerned. There are the FEOGA grants for the expansion of our fleet which pay 45 per cent of the cost in the case of selected applicants.
Deputy Browne asked specifically about the fuel subsidy. We all appreciate the problems thrown up by the oil crisis. They have been bearing heavily on almost all industries. As I mentioned last Thursday in the House, when this crisis arose the fishermen's representatives met me and I asked them to give me statistics of their costs and their profit and loss accounts. The provision of such statistics is elementary as far as making a case for State help is concerned. No one can walk along to the Exchequer and say: "Such a group are badly off, they need a handout". All such requests must be backed up by factual information.
I do not want to repeat again my statements to the House on two previous occasions that in the absence of such figures I have to rely on the appraisal given to me by the officers of my Department. Deputy Brennan questioned me on that. Deputy Brennan was a member of a Cabinet for a number of years and I am sure he is aware of the essential procedures that must be adopted in a case like this. It is my job to help the development of this industry in any way I can possibly do. That is the job of work assigned to me by the State and I intend to do it irrespective of what Deputy Blaney, Deputy Gallagher or anybody else has to say, I am fearlessly on the side of the fishermen to ensure that they will get fair play.
Most Deputies, including my good, loyal friend, Deputy Haughey, who was in control of the purse for a number of years, are conversant with the procedure. I am sure if somebody in Fianna Fáil had gone along to Deputy Haughey when he was Minister for Finance and asked for money without any back-up——
I was always decent to the fishermen.
I appreciate that. Deputy Haughey was decent to the fishermen and as far as others were concerned as well. I appreciate that the fishing industry is mainly on a share system basis and that it is necessary for all skippers to keep accounts because they must disburse their funds weekly or fortnightly. They must take into account operational costs and so on. Therefore, I thought it would be an easy job to assess these things. Certain fishermen applied for FEOGA grants.
What is the point of that? Would the Parliamentary Secretary like to bring all his red herrings to the Dublin fish market tomorrow?
The Deputies know that the Government are doing a good job as far as this industry is concerned. They are only trying to cause disruption.
The Parliamentary Secretary had better tell that to the six Labour councillors in Wexford.
I know what Fianna Fáil gave to fishermen during their last 15 years in office. I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is anxious that I should conclude. I should dearly love to have another hour because there is so much information available to me here that I could indicate that there is a complete answer to the assertions made during this debate so far. Again I repeat that the Government did use Deputy Blaney's yardstick in demonstrating their confidence in the industry. Using that yardstick the Government certainly measured up and we will continue to help the industry in every possible way. There are several aspects I do not have an opportunity of covering —marketing, limits, a separate Ministry and so on.
The Parliamentary Secretary's time is up.
I assured the association no later than two hours ago that all matters will be examined as closely and carefully and diligently as they have been in the past and will continue to be in the future. The best yardstick to measure the Government's interest in any particular industry is that supplied tonight by Deputy Blaney and measured by that yardstick the money totals 100 per cent.
Not a word about what the Parliamentary Secretary is going to do.
The reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary now will create nothing but despair and hopelessness in the fishermen concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered any of the demands quite clearly made by them over recent months. He has, in fact, insulted them by not referring specifically to the matters we came here to debate. The action taken by the fishermen, regrettable though it is, was brought about by the frustration induced by the Parliamentary Secretary in a group of people placed in a position in which they must listen to the kind of drivel to which the Parliamentary Secretary treated this House tonight.
Tell us about Rossaveal.
One of the most frustrating experiences of the fishermen on deputations to the Parliamentary Secretary has been the fact that he goes on talking for the duration of the deputation and they emerge weary and tired, but glad to get out, having got nothing. Talking now about being willing to hold meetings is offering no hope to these men. Their demands have been known to the Parliamentary Secretary for over a year. Despite their well-founded arguments no action has been taken to meet their needs.
The most frustrating aspect of this whole dispute is the apparent inability on the Parliamentary Secretary's part to understand that a problem exists. Even today when the special notice question was raised he seemed to think the fishermen were doing very well and that no problem existed. To quote his own words: "The standard of living of the fishermen has increased". That is what he stated here today. He could not have been more blunt when he said: "I cannot see what grievances they can have".
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these men are suffering grave substantial financial losses, losses which have compelled them, against their wishes, to take action involving them in a blockade of some major ports to try to bring home to the Parliamentary Secretary that a problem does, in fact, exist? It is regrettable after the length of time the Parliamentary Secretary has been in office that this is the only way the fishermen feel they can bring to the Parliamentary Secretary's notice in a forceful and effective manner the fact that they are faced with serious problems. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary is too lazy —I regret having to say this—to study the case in detail or sufficiently broadly to apprehend the problems. If that is the case, then the fishing industry should not be saddled much longer with a Parliamentary Secretary who fails to apprehend the basic needs and the problems presented so plainly to him.
Rossaveal. Tell us about Rossaveal.
Earlier this year the Parliamentary Secretary tolerated a totally inadequate sum for his office as published in the Book of Estimates for 1975. The amount was so inadequate the chairman of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara said the boatyards would have to close by April of this year. We know that several small boatyards involved in the production of the 35-foot fishing boat were informed by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara that no grants were available and some had to go on a shorter working week because of that.
We know now that it was the vigilance of the Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition here that forced the Government to restore the necessary finances, which they reluctantly did in the budget following the publication of the Book of Estimates. Today we have had yet another example of the neglect of the fishing industry, with the men employed in the industry saying one thing and the Parliamentary Secretary saying something else. The Parliamentary Secretary was proved wrong on the Book of Estimates issue. He is wrong again on this issue.
The very livelihood of every fisherman engaged in the industry is at stake. The problem is much more serious than was the problem the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with so glibly some months ago. The fishermen have put their demands on the line. Some of these can be met in the short term and others in the long term. The requests are reasonable. If they meet with a reasonable response the strike and the blockade will cease.
The short-term case can be stated very briefly. Over the past year the price of fish has fallen while operating costs have increased. The majority of trawler owners have heavy repayments to meet in a loss making situation. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have the figures on all boats on repayments. The monthly income from catches is available. The outgoings are available and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara can supply information on the average monthly expenditure.
I want now to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that trawlers operating in the Galway-Aran district have experienced enormous increases in operating costs in the period July, 1973, to April, 1975. I will give concrete examples under three headings. One group consists of boats with an engine 75 to 150 horse-power using 250 gallons of diesel on average per week. The second group is the 150 to 240 horse-power using 500 gallons of diesel on average per week. The third is the 240 to 550 horse-power using 1,000 gallons of diesel on average per week. In the first group, the 75 to 150 horse-power, the cost of 250 gallons of fuel in July, 1973, was £17.50 a week. It has increased to £59.91 now. In the second group, the 150 to 240 horse-power using on average 250 gallons of fuel a week, the cost in July, 1973, was £35 a week; it has risen now to £119 a week. In the largest engined class up to 550 horse-power using 1,000 gallons on average per week the cost has increased from £70 in July, 1973, to £238, an increase of £168 per week. Multiply that figure by 52 weeks in the year and one will soon see where the fishermen have to meet heavy increases in costs.
These figures were prepared for me by Comharchumann Iascairí na Gaillimhe agus Árann Teoranta showing the increases in operating costs in the Galway-Aran area. The price of oil in Galway was 8.67 pence a gallon, less the rebate of 1.67 pence a gallon, leaving it at 7 pence per gallon in July, 1973. VAT on the 10th July, 1973, was 5.26. On 4th November, 1973, VAT was increased to 6.75. There was a price increase of oil to 12.14p per gallon on 14th December, 1973. From the 21st February, 1974, to the present time the price increased to 22.30p per gallon. The increase in the price of oil in the Galway-Aran district from July, 1973, has been given by me already.
Trawler operating costs also increased and I shall quote some figures to show this. Average provision for weeks prior to July, 1973 amounted to £35 per week but for April, 1975 the amount had increased to £70 per week. The rentals in respect of various equipment at April, 1975 were up by 20 per cent. With regard to repairs to trawlers, the average charge prior to July, 1973 was approximately £1.50 per hour but in April 1975 it was £3 per hour and some fishermen tell me it is as high as £4 per hour. As can be certified by the companies who sell fishing gear, the cost has risen by approximately 100 per cent; repayment on new vessels and the cost of building has increased by 100 per cent; in the same period the cost of painting and renewal work has increased by 100 per cent; overheads and replacement of engines and parts have increased in cost by 25 per cent. The cost of travel to and from ports by the skippers and crew has increased by 100 per cent.
The demands of the fishermen are reasonable. They have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that the Government will consider setting up a separate Ministry for Fisheries. They have asked to be consulted with regard to their demands for a 50-mile limit and they seek representation at Geneva. It is extraordinary that the fishermen are not consulted by the Department in our representations at Geneva; they should be brought there as observers.
Allowing the importation of fish from third countries outside the EEC cannot be tolerated. We have been told by the fishermen that most of the prawns served in hotels at the dinners which the Labour and Fine Gael Ministers seem so happy to attend are imported from third countries. The EEC regulations do not appear to apply to the importation of such products——
That is not true.
Our party have not been allowed sufficient time in this debate. The Parliamentary Secretary has responded in a very disappointing way to the appeal by the fishermen. He has introduced an air of hopelessness and despair into this situation in the attitude he displayed and the answers he gave to this debate. We hope the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries will act in this matter and ensure that the deterioration in the situation is not allowed to continue.
In the few minutes available to me I shall try to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary to change his mind with regard to this problem. We moved the Adjournment of the Dáil on this occasion for the purpose of highlighting a serious matter. The Parliamentary Secretary has had an opportunity of discussing the situation with the fishermen. The very least we might have expected from him was a positive, encouraging statement, that would show he knows something of the problems confronting these people. We were entitled to get an outline of the action he intends taking. However, he did not do that. He treated the House to the greatest exercise of buffoonery the House has witnessed for many years. He sneered and laughed while the crowd behind him jeered——
That is not so. The Deputy's party are bluffing. They are trying to collect a few votes.
This is a serious matter when there are 103,000 people unemployed. We were entitled to a serious discussion on this matter.
This question has been treated seriously by the Government, both inside and outside the House.
The Deputy in possession should be allowed speak without interruption.
We expected that the Government would deal not only with this serious problem for the fishermen but also with the general problem of unemployment. Fishing is an industry that could be extremely beneficial to our economy and could be of special benefit to the west. The raw material is available. It is an industry that employs male labour and it is an expanding industry. However, it is facing a very steep dive, like every other industry and the Parliamentary Secretary cannot deny that fact. Last week we tried to find out from him if the decision made with regard to fisheries was a Government decision. He told us it was his decision, that the Government had not decided. In other words, he did not think it worth his while to bring the matter before the Government. He took an arbitrary decision to say "no" when the question arose regarding the subsidising of fuel.
It appears he wants audited figures. Does he deny fuel costs have increased 400 per cent since his Government have been in office? Does he deny the cost of boats has increased by 200 per cent? The paltry few million pounds does not compensate for the rate of inflation and this is happening at a time of crisis, when we are faced with the greatest unemployment problem. The House is entitled to something better than the nonsense we have listened to tonight when we are discussing one of the most progressive industries. It is indicative of the Government's approach to industry generally; nothing is being done to help the people concerned. There is much talk about the door being open, about the Government being prepared to meet the fishermen at any time, but the net result is that no help is given. What are the Government of all the talents doing?
(Interruptions.)
Order. I would ask Deputies to allow the speaker in possession to continue without interruption.
The Government promised so much but they did nothing. Let them take their medicine now.
(Interruptions.)
Interruptions are disorderly. I have already told Deputies that they should allow the Deputy in possession to speak without interruption.
The Parliamentary Secretary is not obliged to wait for his officials to give him figures. He can tell them he wants the industry to get £10 million; he is the person in charge of fisheries and it is his job to ensure that the industry survives. It is the collective responsibility of the Government to ensure that this industry is given the necessary help. Our balance of payments deficit is running at a very high figure and fisheries is one industry that can play a valuable part in reducing that figure.
These are the problems the Government should seriously consider but instead of that they have sent the Parliamentary Secretary into this House, to kick to touch for 30 minutes, to laugh and jeer at the people who put down this motion. We did that in order to get a definite, positive statement with regard to Government policy——
There is no sincerity in the Deputy's speech.
The Parliamentary Secretary's attitude is that the Government are not going to do anything to help the fishing industry. They have said that it is not possible to give a subsidy. There was hope at one time that the regional fund might come to the rescue of the fishing industry in the provision of money for harbours but the most recent information available to us is that this will not happen and the fishermen's hopes have faded.
The Deputy is concerned about his party. That is his only worry.
All the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned about is that he is a Parliamentary Secretary. He thinks it is sufficient to point out to us that we are in Opposition while he is sitting on the Government benches; he thinks that will make everyone happy——
That is what Fianna Fáil did.
We have the right to expose the lackadaisical attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to one of our most important industries. If he thinks he will get away with the performance he has given tonight he is mistaken.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 16th April 1975.