I would remind Deputy Taylor that he has 19 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Fishing Industry: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the failure of the Government to formulate any positive policy in relation to the continued expansion of the fishing industry.
—(Deputy Gallagher).
The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government fully realised that the fishing industry was not in an organised position to take full advantage of the potential which was available to them and one of the first acts of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government was to make available to the body responsible for welding together the different groups—the IAOS—a sum of £15,000. That was done specifically for the many and varied groups who, over the years, expressed different views at different times and, in fact, were not, to put it bluntly, pulling together as well as they should be. This sum, certainly, was wisely expended. We now have reached the stage where we have a united fishermen's association called the Irish Fishermen's Organisation which speaks for all the fishermen. It is now much easier for the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this properly organised group. At all times he has shown his willingness to meet with them and with others who have views also and encourage them to put forward suggestions which would be helpful to him in formulating an overall policy.
It will be necessary, I suppose, as a further step, to encourage the formation of fishing co-operatives and as the years move on the fishermen will realise the vital importance of having properly organised and run co-operatives. As individuals, we will not get the best price. We can hope for better prices when we are in a position to market our produce in a proper way. The Parliamentary Secretary has recommended the involvement of fishermen and it is reaping a rich harvest at this stage. He met all of them on numerous occasions so he cannot be accused of at any time refusing to meet responsible people.
One must question not alone the action of fishermen at present but the action of many others who think that the best method of securing a better way of life for themselves is by organising strikes, whether those strikes are official or unofficial. We all recognise that it is an out-growth of our modern civilisation, often described as "a last resort", in order to focus public attention on a particular complaint or a particular redress of wrongs which certain people consider that they need. We have arrived at the stage now when we must balance the benefits gained against the losses. I would think—and this does not just apply to fishermen, it applies all around—that we should balance out the amount of work hours lost against the gains, balance the disruption of business and trade, the dislocation of business, the hardships which are caused by unofficial strikes against the benefits. It is about time to think of other ways in which to get a redress of wrongs or proper attention given to complaints. There is no doubt that we must have some type of early warning system. I think the Minister for Labour has something in mind. It would certainly be an advantage to both workers and employers if, when there is the seed of discontent growing, whether on the factory floor, among fishermen or others, there would be a line of communication between management and those who have the complaint. Rather than have an accumulation of complaints and discontent and a whole disorganisation of our society it would be much easier if we had that line of communication and disputes brought to the conference table at an early stage.
I am not saying that the fishermen's organisation had not the right to withdraw their labour and block the ports as in this case. In every strike there is undoubtedly an amount of hardship created but it would be well to change our way of life in this respect and to turn our minds to better ways to secure for our people an improved standard of living. Certainly, all people who live in this island know well the hardships which fishermen must endure. They are conversant with the hazards which they have to face and on that account they have a certain sympathy with fishermen who are undoubtedly brave men and would like to see their lot improved in getting better prices for catches, having better boats and having an all round better standard of living.
One must also consider how we can all look for improved standards of living. We are living in a period in which we are trying to overcome a recession which has an effect on the daily lives of everybody whether he is a worker in any capacity, or an owner of property. One must consider whether or not we should all have a waiting period until we get over our present temporary crisis. If we do we will be able to channel much more of our energy and our money into areas such as the fishermen's co-operatives and so on, to improve their standards. Many will complain that we are now living under sections 4 and 5 which were negotiated on our entry into the EEC and some, certainly on this side of the House, will say that we are not responsible for the terms which were negotiated at that time but we certainly might consider that a renegotiation could be helpful and, undoubtedly, will be helpful and that will take place in due course.
I can never understand why in the last four years of office of the previous Government the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries returned in one year 66 per cent of the allocation for harbour development, in another year 48 per cent, in another year 40 per cent and in the fourth year 47 per cent. When you consider the development required in small areas one finds it difficult to understand the attitudes which permitted this. A sum of money was voted but the expenditure was less than was provided. This will not happen now. None of us would wish it to happen because it is vital to develop the smaller harbours. The expenditure of about £½ million at Rossaveal will be a real encouragement to the people there.
While acknowledging the necessity to provide adequate facilities for bigger boats, there must be a proper assessment of the needs of fishermen in areas like the west coast of Clare. That is why I specifically mentioned this money which was returned to the Exchequer in the last four years of the administration of the previous Government.
It is very important that owners be provided with suitable boats, and Bord Iascaigh Mhara are ensuring that this is done. I know of a few instances where progressive young men purchased boats and the grants were not approved by Bord Iascaigh Mhara on the ground that the boats were not up to the required standard. Fishermen have local knowledge. They have a good understanding of tides and currents. In future I would prefer to see much more consultation between those who purchase boats and Bord Iascaigh Mhara. It is a wonderful help that the Department are paying 70 per cent of the interest on loans in respect of the purchase of boats. That is a real encouragement. Nevertheless, the purchaser needs to have a basic amount of capital. That is where a co-operative can be most helpful. Possibly, businessmen and others would consider investing money in fishermen's co-operatives in order to encourage them to continue in this vocation.
The Deputy has four minutes.
All the money expended on the purchase of boats should be expended in this country. We have the techniques, the knowledge and the tradition of boat building. Where the proper type of boat can be provided locally I would not approve of grants being paid for the purchase of boats outside the country. I hope the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will give greater encouragement to the boat-building industry and will attempt to locate industries where this type of work can be undertaken, particularly on the west coast. The IDA and other promoting agencies can expend quite substantial sums of money, often given to very doubtful industrialists, who in many instances have not justified the confidence which the State has shown by giving them huge sums of money. State investment in the boat building industry would provide employment opportunities for persons with the expertise. Workers would be encouraged to train for this type of work. Generally, this native industry would show greater buoyancy.
This motion has given all of us an opportunity to express our views. It is good to encourage people to express views. This Government have practically doubled the amount of money which was allocated in the last year of office of the previous Government. The allocation has gone from £4,150,000 to £7,940,000—an increase of £3,790,000. We would like to be able to give more. It cannot be argued that it is not a substantial increase, even allowing for inflation. That money will be expended, I am sure, and none of it will be returned to the Exchequer.
The Chair must call the next Deputy.
This motion on fisheries may not do much to improve the lot of the people engaged in the industry. It will help to goad the Government into some action or at least make them conscious of their lack of action in the present circumstances. It is sometimes frightening to witness the gross misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of what is involved in the fishing industry as evidenced from the speeches that we hear from the other side of the House. It makes one's spine shiver that one of the most important industries potentially that this country has is being completely neglected and ignored at a time when it is most essential that every possible effort should be made to develop that industry which could make the best contribution to the national economy in the existing disastrous situation.
The fishing industry has had many vicissitudes down through the years. Time does not permit me to develop the evolution of the fishing industry from its earliest days when it was mainly engaged in by part-time fishermen in Ireland who went down to the sea in small craft on occasions when weather permitted and worked on their farms at other times. The figures given for those days show a huge number of people engaged in fishing whereas, in fact, they were only part-time fishermen with a very modest, if not low, standard of living. The amount they were able to reap from the sea in the precarious livelihood they enjoyed was barely sufficient to keep body and soul together as a supplement to their farm work.
We saw the change rapidly taking place. The fishing industry will not develop without getting the necessary capital support from public funds. There is no industry so sensitive and so responsive to capital investment from the Exchequer as the fishing industry. The men who engage in fishing have not got the capital to equip themselves with the necessary expensive gear required in order to develop fishing. It was for that reason that we first put the fishing industry in Ireland properly on its feet, and gave the fishermen the opportunity, even though they had not got the money, to purchase the larger craft for which the demand was growing to enable them to fish in deeper waters and to pursue their livelihood under better conditions and with greater comfort.
That set the basis for the fishing industry, which is essentially an overexpanding industry requiring more and more capital each year. There are many facets of the industry which must be brought up simultaneously. When one increases the catching power, this requires greater capital investment. This requires more boats and gives better employment in the yards. It requires more men at sea and this requires more training and a better training programme to equip the many people who are prepared to go to sea now, if given the proper facilities to do so.
In addition to increasing the catching power by providing better and expanding fleets, it increases the landings of fish and this requires more market research, better market development, restructuring of markets, the provision of processing plants ashore for the many ways fish can be processed, the provision of ice plants in order to retain supplies in times of glut so that they may be released in suitable quantities when there is a shortage. It encourages processing in the line of smoking, of filleting, of marinating and the production of fishmeal and fish oils and many other ancillary industries which are essentially attached to a growing and expanding fishing industry.
It was that expanding base we properly established and set going with an ever-growing and expanding fleet consisting each year of more boats and boats of a better type. To hear somebody say that at the last minute the Minister threw a few extra pounds on the plate to keep this industry alive is laughable. It shows a complete ignorance of the industry. Indeed, in the face of a complete lack of any development programme whatever, it is appalling to see the Government sending a young, innocent Deputy like Deputy White into the House to say that the fishermen of Killybegs and Burtonport enjoyed two great years under the present Government. If he were to make that statement on Killybegs Pier he would find himself wrapped around the propellor of a trawler.
The fishermen for the first time found themselves on strike. For the first time skippers were signing on for dole. They have come through a disastrous period and confidence in the industry, like every other industry, has completely sagged. Fishermen have become despondent, without any guidance, without any lead, without any hope as to what the future will hold. These are the two most disastrous years the industry has experienced, an industry which was expanding and would require three times the capital even to keep pace with inflation in the past three years. Inflation alone, if one compares the cost of boats, means that to provide the same number of boats this year as were provided three years ago would require three times the capital which is being put into it now. Everybody knows that. It is a very simple matter of arithmetic to do one's sums on that.
The fishing industry is an important industry. It is unique. It is an industry that has complete worker democracy. The workers are participants in the profits. It is not strike-ridden. Every man is working. It is one for all, each sharing a profit in the best unit output. The best output per man of any industry in the world is to be found in share fishing as practised around our coasts. It is an industry which contributes to the balance of payments. It has all the raw materials here. It does more to absorb employment than many other industries. It is entirely male-orientated and it is an industry particularly suited to the west. It has an unending potential if we develop it.
Apart from immediate development in a time of economic crisis—even if we never had an economic crisis as we have now—we should also be expanding the fishing industry to meet EEC requirements by 1983. This was pointed out by Deputy Gallagher who has sponsored this motion. Nothing whatever is seen to be done in relation to the fishing industry in the form of an organised programme that would point the way to what the future holds.
I must say that as Minister I found the various programmes for economic and social expansion most useful. You had only to look at this book to see what was projected in relation to the Department with which you were involved. You immediately saw where the targets were set and what you could do to move towards them. They might not always be realisable, and they may not have always been realised, but it certainly set down what was decided and agreed on a proper consensus of where an industry should lead, the direction in which money should be channelled and the things that should be done to move towards those targets. While the targets set down in these programmes were not realised in many cases, in other cases they were surpassed, but in all cases they were a definite guide. They were a programme and a blueprint for the economy and they helped to generate the necessary confidence which procured investment in the projected industries. The fishing industry depends on public investment more than any other industry.
The amount of money the Government put into the fishing industry will immediately create expansion that ten times the amount will yield in other industries. As a Member of the Government in Fianna Fáil's time I was particularly critical as to the amount of money put into fisheries. It is true economists are able to point out that the rate at which you can develop must be limited because you have to bring up your marketing with your increased catching power. As you expand your fleet the landings increase and you must be able to market them. We have got over all that.
Many of us in this House remember the time when a few small boats fishing for herrings—which are popularly known in the economic lingo as pelagic fish—could glut the market with the least possible effort. We have seen fish carted away as manure, fertiliser for fields, many times. That day has gone. It is gone mainly because of the fishmeal plants we set up which take the fish at all times. Then we have the smoking plants, processing plants, the deep freezing plants and the marinating plants. These are essential for the demersal fish to ensure that a glut at no time can take place. For that reason the market has been steady although the price at times will tend to fall. This is where the Government must come in. The amount of money we are prepared to use at all times in order to attract new industries is very laudable indeed. It is commendable that we are prepared to use so much investment to entice people to invest in new industry.
If a reasonable proportion of this money were invested in the fishing industry, it would respond more rapidly and give a better return than waiting to entice foreigners to start some industry we have not already got or perhaps some industry for which we have to import the entire raw material for processing here.
One of these days, we will have an extended fishing limit. We must be able to show we are capable of using it and capable of protecting it. You do not do this on the eve of its happening; you must commence doing it now. The movement must be in that direction immediately and at a time when the unemployment figures are becoming frightening and when the old standards of living that were rising are beginning to drop again, it surely behoves the entire Government to get together behind one of the industries which can contribute most to the economy at this time and really use whatever brains that exist in the Government to ensure that this industry can be given a fillip that is so essential and will contribute so much to the economy now. I do not see any signs of it.
I remember before he became involved in politics, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs used to give us copious volumes of economic material in the different newspapers and magazines. He gave us the macro-economic analysis and the micro-economic analysis, the projections and the baselines of all the industries and economic development that the country could produce. He had comments on these programmes which were mostly satisfactory and very helpful. What is he contributing to the Government today? He is galloping around and making a Kissinger of himself at a time when he should be tethered to some desk, using that knowledge which he had in the past to make some contribution to the economy at a time when it is shivering and ready to go under, and send some of the extroverts abroad to do the globe-trotting because anyone can do that. It is purely an exercise for an extrovert. His is a brain in the Government that might be used as it was being used before he indulged in politics.
Surely something could be done to restore confidence and create a favourable climate for investment. The difficulty in this industry and the lack of attention and programming really epitomises the Government's handling of every other sector of the economy as well. Nothing is done to create a more favourable climate for investment by private enterprise and to dispel the gloom that is settling over the country, but the Taoiseach in all this morass is like a shepherd in the mist, giving no guidance or leadership whatever to what is required or necessary in the critical time in the country's economic history. Fisheries is only one industry.
I have only a few minutes left and I would like to deal with this on a broader basis. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary could he not bring the Government with him in this and get an industry going which is, at the moment, shivering in uncertainty? Could he not get the Government behind him to do something, not merely to maintain the standards they enjoyed in the past but would help to continue the expansion we were enjoying? I know it would take a good deal of money but the Government are at present spending a lot of money on many other things that are not nearly as essential or would not be as helpful to the economy. I believe that if the Parliamentary Secretary can see, first, the importance of doing this and, secondly, the outcome of what extra investment would mean in the industry at this time, he would be able to bring the Government with him to do something really worthwhile about it.
Those of us in the west do not want doles—we want a means by which we can live. We have the raw material. All we want is the capital investment fully to develop it. The men who go down to sea in boats are of the best mettle that this country can produce. They give a better output; they are not orientated to industrial strife. They are working in a real workers' democracy, participating in the full profits of the industry and giving a better output per person than any other industry.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, even at this late hour, to dispel the uncertainty and the gloom that has settled on this as on other industries and give it the necessary impetus by investing more money in it and dispel the lack of confidence so that private enterprise will also invest greater amounts in it.
It is not right to say there is a good demand for boats. People with smaller boats are seeking larger boats in order that they may fish in deeper waters. The number of people in the industry today is less than it was two years ago. The landings for the past two years were smaller and the income to the fishermen, in spite of the inflated prices, in spite of inflation, was less. The fishermen have just seen two bad years and they are hoping it will be only a temporary experience and they will move in again to the expansion which was beginning to manifest itself in the past. It is an expanding industry from a well-established base. It will require more and more capital each year to permit it to expand but it is well worth any investment that can be made in it. It is much more responsive to capital investment than any other industry that the country enjoys. It makes the greatest contribution to the balance of payments and gives to the workers who are now enjoying better standards and better conditions a reasonably decent livelihood.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary not to look on this motion as something put down as an exercise in propaganda but as something that is calculated to provoke him to do something for the industry and enable him to give some message of hope with regard to what the Government may do for the industry in the future.
In the time at my disposal, it will not be possible for me to deal with all aspects of the industry, so I must confine myself to some and leave others to another date. I prefer to talk about the future rather than the past, and I want to say to Deputy Brennan that I do regard this as an exercise in propaganda —to build up the forlorn fortunes of Fianna Fáil. I would not waste time in making that comment were it not for the fact that he more or less invited me to do so. I would say to Deputy Gallagher, were it not for the fact that he is a relatively new Member of the House, elected in the 1973 election——
Do something for the industry and stop your nonsense.
I did not interrupt anybody during his contribution. Deputy Brennan is moving off because he cannot bear to listen to facts and to factual appraisal of the position. Deputy Gallagher had great cheek to table a motion such as this, deploring "the failure of the Government to formulate any positive policy in relation to the continued expansion of the fishing industry".
Fishermen and others are more interested in what present policy is and what future policy is to be rather than what has happened in the past, but in a discussion such as this as it has travelled, it is impossible not to make comments so far as past performance is concerned. The first thing that comes to mind is the fact that the people who are critical, the Fianna Fáil Party, were in office for about 35 years, frob 1932 to 1948, from 1951 to 1954 and from 1957 to 1973. In the records of the Department this is their total production in so far as any papers dealing with sea fisheries are concerned.
I want to express my thanks and appreciation to Deputies White and Taylor for their contributions. They covered some of the ground regarding the availability of moneys for harbours, the fact that this money was not expended, and the fact that this Government have almost doubled the contributions towards the fisheries since they came into office two years ago. The Deputies' contributions, despite the adverse comment of Deputy Brennan and his colleagues, were a factual appraisal of the position. Deputy Brennan was long enough in Government to do all the things he thinks should be done but did not do them. They are now being done by this Government.
I will give a partial history of the position. Taking into account that we had a discussion on 15th April I do not want to go over any of the ground covered then. It is all in the records. I will deal with the position obtaining at the time we came to power in March, 1973. We found there was little or no movement towards developing fishermen's organisations or, to use EEC terms, producers' organisations. We found that Fianna Fáil did not want such as is now shaping, a fishermen's organisation, because it was easier for them to deal with splinter groups—an organisation here and there. They were allowing this industry to tread along in its own slow way.
Fianna Fáil took very good care— I am not in any way reflecting on the capacity of the holders of the office down the years—to appoint Parliamentary Secretaries in charge of fisheries who were far removed from the sea. All the nominees of Fianna Fáil who dealt with our sea fisheries were Members from inland constituencies. That was deliberate on their part because of the little concern shown by the party in relation to development of the industry.
I do not think there was any interest taken by the Government in so far as the development of the industry was concerned. It was all left to the Parliamentary Secretary to make the best job he could of it. The more unexpended balances he had, such as those quoted in the House by Deputy Taylor, the better. Deputy Taylor told the House, and factually so, that 66 per cent was left over one year for harbour development. Deputy John O'Leary from South Kerry was complaining last night about all the small harbours in Kerry and south west Cork, and Deputy Gallagher complained about the harbours in Mayo. But at a time when this money was far more powerful than it is today, it was left unexpended. I am sure the Government then, particularly the Minister for Finance, were delighted that they had a person in charge of fisheries to whom they could vote a reasonably sizeable sum of money for fisheries in the knowledge that the money would find its way back to the Exchequer unexpended.
Everybody knows what would have happened if such moneys were expended. Many of the representations made by Deputies through the years would have been dealt with. The justifiable representations and representations from local authorities such as county councils could have been executed or implemented if the Government were doing their job as they should have been doing. The position has completely changed. Even though I am Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and I have delegated powers in so far as fisheries are concerned I know very well—every Member of the Government Party knows—that many Members of the Government are interested in this industry. The position does not obtain in this Government that a Member is assigned a particular office and that he forgets all other offices. I have ample evidence of the interest not only of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Clinton, but of other senior members of the Government who are vitally interested in this industry. As a result of their interest they have, as stated here from the Government benches, almost doubled the money taken from taxpayers' pockets towards the development of this industry. The amount given, £8 million, is a sizeable amount having regard to present circumstances and it is double what Fianna Fáil put into the industry in the last year of their term of office.
There was no evidence that the Fianna Fáil Party while in Government were anxious that fishermen should form themselves into an organisation. The first step I took on assuming office was to meet various representatives of fishermen's associations, discuss their problems with them and advise them on the desirability and necessity of forming national organisations. As a result of that, within the past two years, a national producers' organisation, which is so necessary and essential having regard to our membership of the EEC, will be registered in the next few days.
I am not satisfied that the organisation position is completed. I have expressed the view in the House through the years and on assuming office two years ago that we cannot overlook the important role played by crewmen in so far as the development of our sea fisheries are concerned. The organisation about to be registered mainly consists of skippers but I want to see the crewmen—the smaller men in the industry—organised also because I am anxious that they all get their fair slice of the loaf. I know that in some areas they are not getting that fair slice at the moment. Any advice the crewmen need in helping them to organise and fight and look for their rights will be given. This should be all the easier by virtue of the type of system that obtains in so far as sea fisheries are concerned.
Deputy Brennan referred to the share system as being the operative one covering all the Donegal coast. It should be quite easy for the crewmen to be allowed play their part in discussions and future tactics. The crewmen should be given the same right and entitlement to examine papers and documents by virtue of being shareholders in the boats, just as the skippers have that right and entitlement.
The State is asking the taxpayer to give us so much money in every year to provide boats to enable skippers and crewmen to take to the sea and to fish. We want to see the substantial aid which this State gives to skippers for the purchase of their boats, spread around, not only to the skippers but to crewmen also.
I want to repeat here what I said just a month ago, that there is no country in the world—and that statement has not been contradicted so far by the Opposition despite all the research in which they have engaged —that gives more aid to fisheries than we do here. I see nothing wrong in that; we are an island country. Naturally, we are anxious to develop our fisheries, to improve our exports as far as possible. And it is pleasing to note that the value of exports is increasing. In 1972 the figure was £7.7 million; in 1973 it was £10.6 million and, in 1974, it was £12.5 million. We are making progress. Everybody knows that there was a decline in price. I would go into that in a detailed way had I the time available. Late last year and earlier this year the same position applied where fish is concerned as applied to cattle prices late in 1974. Fianna Fáil seem to be gleeful, taking great delight in the fact that prices are down, that we have problem and difficulties. That is not good policy. That is not the type of policy advocated by the Opposition parties when Fianna Fáil were in office. The people will not accept such policies. In the most favourable and fertile ground that Fianna Fáil have in the country, they know how far they got with the kind of tactics they adopted. There is no need for further comment.
Deputy Brennan mentioned expansion and an endeavour to do everything possible for sea fishermen. Deputy Brennan never mentioned our salmon fisheries. Our salmon fisheries last year netted £2.49 million, or excluding the Foyle fisheries, netted £2.33 million. I am sure, had Fianna Fáil not been rejected in 1973, drift-net fishing here would have been abolished completely and a sizeable part of this £2 million lost by virtue of our change in the policy advocated by Fianna Fáil, prior to the 1973 election, and set down in no uncertain terms in a circular issued by Mr. J. Gibbons, the former Minister, on the 15th of February, 1973, during the course of the election campaign. I know what was interesting Fianna Fáil, which was that, numerically, of course, the drift-net fishermen around the coast are a very small group. There are only 995 drift-net licences issued altogether. We had their widespread representation from all the inland areas. I am not saying that these representations and the motives behind them were not sincere, but what they wanted to do was to wipe out the drift-net men. As a result, we had this Order of 1972 confining the issue of less net licences to anybody unless he derived a substantial part of his livelihood from salmon fishing in previous years. The number of people who would measure up to the criteria laid down by Fianna Fáil would be significantly small. This was the first step as enunciated by Mr. Gibbons in his Press Release of the 15th of February, 1973, to abolish that type of fishing by endeavouring to get support for that type of activity from people, angling clubs and so on, in inland areas. Politically, I suppose, it was good tactics on his part because there were a small number of people involved. On the other hand, the numbers who are supposed to be interested in angling were deemed to be approximately 180,000 or 190,000 people.
Despite that, this Government analysed the position carefully, diligently and closely as soon as we assumed office. We said it was unfair to perpetrate that kind of action; undoubtedly, there was need for conservation but we would not take the extreme measures taken by Fianna Fáil, throwing a number of people, who by virtue of their way of family life over the years, were entirely dependent on fishing away from the right of entitlement to fish for salmon.
Many of those drift-net men, who fish also throughout the year for other types of fish, have got good returns and big cheques into their pockets as a result of this Government's policies; they should be very thankful to us that that is the position.
It was no harm for me to mention that fact because salmon fishing constitutes approximately 27 per cent of the total value of fish landed here. We gave them the additional incentive that Fianna Fáil had taken from them, and undoubtedly would take from them were they in office. The problems confronting us are major ones.
There is a complete change; we know that. Our membership of the EEC is going to make a major change. What the Government are endeavouring to do is to get everybody associated with the industry, crewmen, skippers, fish processors, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara—and my references to BIM were rather few because of the limitation of time but that in no way takes from the fact that I agree they are doing a reasonably good job-together. We are formulating a policy which will be somewhat bulkier than the policy which Fianna Fáil formulated in their 36 years in office and as contained within the covers of that little booklet. There was no such thing as a policy, except what was contained in that booklet, when I came into office. In the fisheries section of the Department, I must say, the personnel are second to none; they are good workers. But, of course, people in a Department, or working in a section must do as the Government of the day order, and the Government of the day did not play much part in the expansion of fisheries or on harbour development.
I am rushing because of limitation of time, but I might mention the question of boats. The number of larger boats in the past two years has increased by about 47 per cent or 48 per cent. We are building the boats. We do not regard fishing as a restricted practice. We accept that all people who wish to adopt fishing as a career, whether they live on the seashore or inland, are entitled to have their applications considered. We are providing the training in Greencastle school and we are providing training facilities for BIM in other centres.
The aim of Government policy in relation to the sea fishing industry can be simply stated—it is to secure the expansion of the industry with all speed. However, the scale and direction of such development should be in the long term. The main reason for this is that at this time a number of issues of vital importance to the future of the industry not only in this country but throughout the world are awaiting decision. They include the extension of fishery limits in the context of the Law of the Sea Conference, future programmes for the conservation of fish stocks, EEC plans for the restructuring of fishing fleets and so on.
While key issues such as these remain unresolved, it is not possible to set out anything in the nature of a blueprint for the industry covering the next five or ten years. Add to this the complexities of our situation within the EEC and you will find that it is not so easy to sit down and produce a policy like a conjurer would pull a rabbit out of a hat. That is not how this Government intend to do it. We are taking careful steps and at the Law of the Sea Conference, whose decisions can be so important as far as we are concerned, the Government delegated the Attorney General, Deputy Costello, to represent us there as a man who had the capacity to put our case and to argue on behalf of the fishermen and the Irish nation. We do not take half measures. Not only are the members of the Government involved but we have the Attorney General's help and advice at our disposal. On behalf of the fishermen of this country, I must express my thanks and appreciation for his efforts, for the detailed statements he has submitted to the Department and also for the statements he made at the Law of the Sea Conference. We are, of course, fortunate in having within our ranks so many people with so much capacity to represent us and to do our work faithfully and well.
When listening to Deputy Gallagher yesterday, I did not know if he was sincere when he spoke about Mayo piers. Reading some files on Mayo piers I found that they were marked "private and confidential" and even representations from the chairman and secretaries of the local Fianna Fáil cumainn would not get disclosures on these matters. The idea was that if they said that there was a recommendation for the improvement of a pier in some of these cases the Government would have to find the money to repair it and, because they were not able to find the money to repair it they marked the files "private and confidential". One would think it was nuclear armaments or atomic energy or a similar subject that was being considered.
There is no such thing as that as far as we are concerned. All matters relating to harbours and piers and the recommendations and reports of our engineering advisers are available to the public. The aim of this Government is to ensure that moneys voted by this Parliament will not remain unexpended, as happened under Fianna Fáil over the years. Every penny we get from the House and from the Exchequer will be expended on desirable harbour improvement works. That is an assurance that I have no hesitation in giving and it will be carried out. I do not know where Deputy Gallagher got this saying "investment lowest, potential highest". Our investment is twice that of the previous Government.
I did not refer to conservation which is an important item. However, I will refer to the question of the marketing of fish. It is an exceptionally important item and time does not allow me to deal fully with it. I can tell Deputies that we are taking special cognisance of this very vital marketing facility. I have been at the Dublin market occasionally. There have been some reports in this evening's papers but so far as the Department and I are concerned, these statements are completely unfounded. We will have reports from the National Prices Commission on the price of fish. We want to ensure that the profits made in the resale of fish will be reasonable and fair and that our fishermen will not be exploited.
The fishermen can look forward to the future with every confidence knowing that they have a Government in power who have the will and the capacity and who have given ample evidence that they intend to develop this industry in every way possible. They can be assured that so far as our dealings with the EEC are concerned —the negotiations for entry were carried out by the former Government—we will do our best to get the best bargain possible for our fishermen. I must point out that the negotiations so far as our fishermen are concerned left much to be desired. However, that is another day's work. I have no doubt that Dáil Éireann will not condemn the Government for their activities so far as the development of our fisheries are concerned but rather will they applaud the Government's large injection of public funds into this industry during the two short years we have been in office.
In speaking in support of this motion, let me say at the outset that I have the unique distinction of being the only Member of this House who was once a full-time professional fisherman. I do not wish on my colleagues the doubtful pleasure of that experience but it does help me and it qualifies me to speak with some authority, practical knowledge and compassion about the unfortunate fishermen engaged in the industry.
The fishing industry, at all times, has been the Cinderella of the economy and has been grossly neglected by successive Governments since the foundation of the State and even before that. As far as I know, no Government, native or otherwise, saw fit to assign a separate Department and a full-time Minister to this industry which, in my opinion, should be the second, and I mean a very, very good second, industry to agriculture. Not only have they failed in giving this major industry its rightful place and proper status in the economic hierarchy but they also damaged the industry and did a great disservice to it by placing it under the care of the Minister for Agriculture and giving him responsibility for it. To my mind, this was a marriage of inconvenience, a marriage which inevitably bred problems. There was a conflict of interests inevitably between two industries which were managed by the one Minister, where there was bound to be trouble as to the making of policy, to the allocation of moneys, staff and so on. That was a fatal mistake on the part of all the Governments. There was an exception to this, I understand, some time in the twenties, when Fisheries was linked to, I think, Lands, and I am told that during that period there was growth and development and a certain measure of prosperity within the industry.
A clash of interests and a clash of personalities is inevitable in a situation where you have the one Minister dealing with two disparate economies. In a contest like this the Goliath, agriculture, is bound to win against the David, fisheries. This happened time and again and recently we had the meagre, visible, couple of million pounds which was doled out by the Parliamentary Secretary to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, in comparison with the massive amounts given to agriculture at all times.
Successive Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries have been notoriously antipathetic where fishing is concerned. They have been unenlightened about the industry and very often they have been quite ignorant about fishery matters and especially—and I should like to stress this—about the philosophy and the outlook of fishermen and the conditions under which they lived. Most of these Ministers were farmers or farmer-orientated and in all cases they left the onerous task of dealing with the fishery industry to their Parliamentary Secretaries who, of course, with few exceptions, were equally ill-equipped to deal with the task. The Parliamentary Secretary who is present now demonstrated this himself quite recently. He spoke about the concern of members of the Government and of members of the Cabinet for the fishermen and the fishing industry. Recently in this House, in reply to a question put down by Deputy R.P. Burke and myself requesting that fuel for fishing boats should be subsidised, he replied that this was out of the question because of the enormous profits made by fishermen during the past year or two during the regime of the present Administration. He was pressed on this matter by myself, by Deputy Brennan and Deputy R.P. Burke, and he admitted, under pressure, that this was his own decision.
There was no pressure on me to state that.
He confessed and he had the honesty and the courage to state that he never referred this matter to the Cabinet or to any Minister. That is a sad indictment of collective Coalition open Government. When the fishermen were marching up and down the town here the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries admitted that he himself, off his own bat, made the decision that fuel for fishing vessels should not and need not be subsidised and that is on record.
Apart from being the poor relation of the Ministry of Agriculture, there are many other reasons why the fishing industry has been neglected over the years. One, of course, is the failure of the public as well as the politicians and the civil servants, to grasp the full extent of the importance and the real potential of this industry. In recent years and months we have had a lot of excitement and ballyhoo about gas and oil finds and mineral wealth which we have in and off this country but there was not a word about the vast and rich harvest which we have in our seas. I advisedly and emphatically use the word "harvest" because fish does not have to be hoed or sowed or harrowed or reaped; it has just to be caught and to be eaten. Our fishing resources— probably the richest in the world—are well known to others. They may not be well known to the Parliamentary Secretary or to his Department, but they are well known to others. It is known to our neighbours in the EEC, to the Russians, to the Spaniards and to the Portuguese, who, having denuded their own fishing grounds of fish life, find our territorial waters a happy hunting and a happy poaching ground with what appears to everybody as impunity, judging by the number of these foreign trawlers which have been captured in the past year or so. It is a fact well known also to neighbours nearer home.
I refer now to the middlemen in the industry who were referred to last night by Deputy Gallagher. There are more middlemen in the fishing industry than in any other business or trade that I know. These people who deal in and handle the fish from the net to the tank, have over the years coolly and incessantly exploited the unfortunate fishermen.
I would like now to make some suggestions which might be helpful to the Parliamentary Secretary. I suggest there should be a separate Ministry for Fisheries having responsibility for fisheries and for the ancillary industries which arise out of fishing, like canning, processing and so on. There should be adequate suplies of gear, ropes, equipment, spare parts and service depots in suitable areas. There should be bigger and better boats. The fishermen deserve a new deal. It is about time they got it and they should get it from this Government now.
First of all, I am amazed at and appalled by the attitude adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary and the speaker from the Government side of the House in relation to this motion. I want to say quite categorically that this motion was not put down for any propaganda on my part or on the part of the people on this side of the House. Last night I outlined clearly the reasons for putting down this motion. They can be summed up very briefly: one is to try to show the importance of this industry to the economy if properly exploited and, secondly, to indicate how important it is for us to ensure that by the time the Treaty of Accession comes up for renewal in 1983 we are in a position to state to the other member nations of the EEC that we are geared to exploit our own waters.
It is quite obvious that the Parliamentary Secretary has made no study of the necessity of taking cognisance of all the things that are involved. We had from various speakers on the other side of the House a list of trivial matters which were hardly worth referring to; for instance, Deputy White mentioned Killybegs and the expansion of Killybegs. He stated that Killybegs was the fastest expanding town in his constituency. This is exactly the reason we have put down this motion.
We want to have more towns like Killybegs to avail of the prosperity that can be generated from this industry. One would imagine it was a shanty town that had sprung up overnight or over the last two years. Deputy White is not codding anybody when he talks like that. If he is so satisfied with the state of the fishing industry in Burtonport and Killybegs, I hope he will go down and tell the fishermen in Burtonport and Killybegs that he is so satisfied.
Reference has been made by Deputy Taylor to grants which were made available to the IAOS to form a secretariat for the fishermen. This has been the position for quite a long time. As a matter of fact, I was on the deputation to the then Minister when this thing was arranged. I was on the board which was appointed by the IAOS to select a man for this position. It is absolute humbug to come in here wasting the time of the House with this kind of waffle. We are looking forward to something better than that from the Government. They should try to show some responsibility in this field.
Deputy White mentioned grants from Roinn na Gaeltachta for boats. The position about Roinn na Gaeltachta grants until quite recently was that, in order to qualify for a grant, Bord Iascaigh Mhara would have to accept a 5 per cent deposit from a fisherman. If the board were satisfied that a fisherman was in a position to pay more than a 5 per cent deposit for his boat he did not qualify for a grant from Roinn na Gaeltachta because he was in a position to put down a greater deposit. However, the fisherman who qualified was entitled to a grant of 80 per cent of that 5 per cent. The Minister for the Gaeltacht, the man who gets all the headlines for the wonderful things he is doing for the Gaeltacht, has put a ceiling of £4,000 on the deposit a fisherman in the Gaeltacht buying a boat may now get from his Department. Up to recently he could get 80 per cent of the 5 per cent deposit he put down on his boat.
Anyone with common sense realises that there are times when it will be necessary for a Department to return moneys because of the system we operate. Recently here I made reference to this when speaking about the fisheries situation. Because of the setup we have at the moment, where the Board of Works carry out the work on behalf of the Department of Fisheries, we know that very often they are not able to have things ready in time. Once money is made available for a job, trial borings have to be done, various engineering works have to be done, and surveys have to be carried out. This can take four to five years. We have a situation in north Mayo where Ballyglass has been on the mat for quite some time.
A great deal of talk and political capital has been made out of the fact that the present Taoiseach went to Rossaveal to start works there. We know quite well all this had been gone into; a second contractor had come on the scene at that stage because the first contractor was not in a position to take on the works for which he tendered. There are matters of this kind which invariably mean that sums will have to be returned. I have at present in my own constituency a case where money has been allocated for a harbour and where the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to a Dáil Question stated that the works will start by 1976 even though it has been sanctioned for quite some time.
One would have thought that at a time when there are extra moneys available to the Government from the various EEC funds they would come along and say they have a programme for fisheries and are prepared to expand the industry. We have the FEOGA fund; we have the regional fund; we have the social fund. These are all funds which can be used by the Government. We understand that moneys are available if plans are prepared. It is necessary to prepare plans, very detailed plans, in order to gain the best benefit from these funds.
That is what we are doing.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government are just sitting down and doing nothing. They keep going back and telling us what Fianna Fáil did in office. I will admit I was not satisfied with Fianna Fáil's investment in fisheries while they were in Government. But I do think having reached, as I said last night, stage one with regard to the development of the building of boats and harbours that he must now take a look at the next stage of the industry. I believe it is necessary to have some planning. We cannot expect an industry, which is taken on a day-to-day basis, to make any real progress unless we have advance planning by the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary. The industry is a very, very important one to this economy.
As has been stated by Deputy Brosnan and others it should be the next industry in line to agriculture and should not be left to lag behind as it has been in the past. I would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary, who was so critical of his predecessors—he more or less described them as land runners—being a man coming from the coast would have some breath of fresh air to bring into this House in relation to the expansion of the industry. I fail to see how the Government can oppose a motion of this kind and I fail to see how a Government, with responsibility to such an important industry, could go into the division lobbies to oppose such a motion.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Maire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl, Deputies Begley and B. Desmond.
Question declared lost.