Vol. 302 No. 8
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1977, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Fisheries, including sundry grants-in-aid.
I should tell the House this debate is due to conclude at 6.30 p.m. It is not necessary to consume all that time but the debate must conclude not later than 6.30 p.m.
This is a net sum and is required mainly to meet development expenses of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, cost of inland fishery equipment and salaries and travelling expenses in my Department.
A sum of £44,000 is being provided to meet the increased cost of salaries, wages and allowances arising from pay increases granted under the national wages agreement and the creation of a separate Department of Fisheries— subhead A.1.
Further excess expenditure of £40,000 arises on travelling expenses mainly due to increased volume of travelling in connection with EEC matters—subhead B.1.
Killybegs and Castletownbere fishery harbours are managed and controlled by my Department under the Fishery Harbour Centres Act, 1968. The present rates of harbour dues and other charges at these centres have been in operation for many years and the receipts therefrom are grossly inadequate to meet expenditure on salaries and maintenance charges at these two centres. As a result the cost of operation of these two harbour centres has to be subsidised. It is proposed to bring the present charges more into line with modern trends but, pending introduction of the new charges, an increase of £13,000 is required in the subsidy in the current year. This subsidy is met from subhead C.4.
An additional sum of £785,000 is being provided in the Grant-in-Aid of administration and current development, to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, adding up to a total grant for the year of £2,575,000—subhead D.1. Part of the additional sum is provided in order to enable the board to expand its development activities. The balance is required mainly to meet a shortfall in the grant-in-aid in 1976 and a deficiency in the anticipated receipts from the board's boatbuilding operations in the current year.
A sum of £10,000 is being provided to meet the cost of implementing the first phase of the 17th round of the national wage agreement for approximately 170 staff employed by 17 boards of conservators—subhead E.
To replace obsolete vehicles and outworn equipment for the Inland Fisheries Trust it is necessary to provide £40,000. A further £17,000 is required to enable the trust to meet the cost of implementing the first phase of the 17th round of the national wage agreement in respect of its 153 workers —subhead F.
Grants of £69,000 have been approved by the EEC in respect of a number of fishery harbours but because of delay in receipt of the amounts approved from the Community there will also be a shortfall in appropriations-in-aid in the current year—subhead I.
There will, however, be savings on other subheads to offset these excesses and I am accordingly recommending to the Dáil a Supplementary Estimate for a token sum of £10.
I just hope we can meet our target for 1979, namely, doubling our catch in the three years allocated in October, 1976. I have grave doubts that we can do so and I wish the Minister success in his endeavours. However, I would like to see a more dynamic approach. I have here a report from the Irish Federation of Marine Industries and in it they say:
The Federation strongly holds the view that even if a common fisheries policy was agreed tomorrow with clear and substantial advantage to our fishing industry that, due to the backward state of the industry, we would be unable to capitalise on the situation.
This is an indictment of the lack of development in the industry in bygone years and I would like the Minister to tell us how we are doing with regard to the plan for doubling our catch by 1979. Are we on course or are we falling back? I believe we are falling back.
First and foremost, the ban on herring fishing around our coast, particularly in the Celtic Sea, must result in a serious drop in the catching power of the fishing fleet. I agree the ban is essential. Not only that, but I believe it came far too late. It was a case of closing the stable door after the horse had bolted because herring stocks had been fished out completely when the ban was imposed. Had proper conservation been adopted ten or 15 years ago there would be no need now for such a total prohibition on herring fishing in the Celtic Sea. That is not the fault of the present Government or of the former Government. It may not be the fault of any Government because it is a fact that fishermen are naturally greedy and they and their foreign counterparts overfished areas which should have been left untouched when they were occupied by spawning fish. I find it difficult to understand how the plan can reach fruition and I should like an explanation from the Minister on the matter. Apart from the Celtic Sea a ban was also imposed in other areas. The total catch must be down because of these prohibitions.
Furthermore, we gained a tremendous lot of ground by the interim unilateral measures which we took earlier this year. They resulted in a major increase in the catches of white fish around the coast and they will help in some way to achieve our target. Unfortunately, these measures lasted for too short a time—I think it was only four months. Had those measures been allowed to continue we could have easily achieved our goal.
I believe we will have a ruling tomorrow by the European Court on our case. I have spoken previously—and not too kindly—regarding the Minister's attitude, but that is water under the bridge. We will have the decision tomorrow and it looks as if the case will go against us. It would be a tremendous boon to the fishing industry and its development if the decision of the court were in our favour.
The Supplementary Estimate does not permit us to go into the whole fishing policy.
It has to do with the expansion of our fishing industry. The only way we can get this expansion is by keeping foreign trawlers far away from our coast. The unilateral measures did that and since these measures have been eliminated the white fish catches have decreased considerably.
There has been a serious development in recent days regarding the supply of fish in this country. We have seen a large-scale importation of fish from Iceland and this shows just how serious the position is at home. I believe that last night an Icelandic boat landed a cargo of fish in New Ross, County Wexford, and this afternoon another Icelandic boat landed a cargo in Drogheda, County Louth. For Ireland to be importing fish on such a scale seems like bringing coals to Newcastle. It is a sad state of affairs when the fleet here cannot sustain the limited number of processing industries we have. My information today is that we are importing fish from Iceland on a large scale. It shows the value of the unilateral measures taken by the Icelandic Government in that they have huge quantities of surplus fish to sell all over the Continent and here in Ireland, which should naturally be a fish exporting country.
While it is a sad state of affairs, it strengthens our case in demanding an exclusive 50-mile zone because it means that, because of the rate of catching by the continentals close to our coast, our stocks are seriously depleted. The fishing industry is taking a hammering and instead of the expansion which we were given the right to achieve in October, 1976, we are actually experiencing a diminution of our catch. This strengthens our case for demanding that exclusive zone.
From my observations of the fishing industry, I have the distinct feeling that our fishermen are not adequately trained. If we are to reach our targets in expansion we must have fully qualified men manning the boats around our shores. Two weeks ago I visited the National Fisheries School in Greencastle. It is the only school for training young fishermen and for training potential skippers to the level where they can get their ticket. The deckhands were in good numbers and there was a full complement of 30 in the class, but it was sad to see that there were only two people taking the skippers course and there is accommodation for 30. It would appear that our fishermen and potential skippers do not think it worth their while to learn some of the finer points of their profession by taking the eight-week course at this school. If we are to be considered as a fishing nation of some importance, schools like this should be packed and there should be waiting lists of young men trying to get in. We should have five or six such schools around our coast. I believe that in Japan and Norway they have large numbers of training schools and even universities for training people in fishery techniques. I would ask the Minister to consider the expansion of our training schools and to consider how best we might encourage fishermen to train to the best advantage. Obviously this is not being done at the moment with regard to the course for skippers.
Our methods of fishing at times can be detrimental to the industry. As I said, it is a natural instinct to be greedy and we are not any more so than others. I have noticed a tendency among fishermen to try to make the fast £ and to damage their long term future by doing so. We have seen this very much in recent years with regard to salmon stocks where there has been a vast amount of overfishing, especially drift netting at sea. It will have to be curtailed.
Another development which has been brought to my notice is the practice of using what is known as a purse seine in catching fish. I believe that purse seining is a very deadly method of fishing and it has been banned in most countries, particularly in Norway. It has made an advent in this country and traditional fishermen are very worried that it may spread. It involves a large degree of unfair competition in that the catches taken are quite huge and stocks cannot stand up to extensive fishing through this method. I would ask the Minister to examine it and consider whether it is in the interests of our fishing industry. No doubt it will lead to tremendous catches in the short term but will our stocks be depleted in the long run?
I referred to our salmon fishing industry. It must be seriously examined. We, as politicians, have been largely to blame in recent years for allowing far too much scope for over-fishing, especially drift netting at sea, and illegal fishing.
Hear, hear.
I was glad to hear the Minister state recently that he intends to bring in legislation to provide for a new form of boards of conservation. This is to be welcomed. The salmon industry will come to an end if the present system is allowed to continue. I have the greatest regard for people who serve on boards of conservators. They do so at their own expense in most cases. They spend many hours away from home and get very little thanks. Their efforts are largely unrewarded because of lack of finance. I would like to see the State providing much more money so that the new boards can eliminate the damage that is being done to the industry at the moment. At present boards of conservators have neither the manpower nor the equipment to stop the poaching that is going on. Almost daily we read in the newspapers every salmon season about waterkeepers being assaulted and intimidated and about wholesale drift-netting off the west coast. It seems to go on unabated and people get away without being prosecuted. This is probably due to the lack of funds and equipment at the disposal of the boards of conservators.
Our salmon industry could be a thriving industry if it were properly controlled. I do not believe that too many licences are being issued at the moment. I believe the licences are in order. It is the amount of illegal fishing by people who have not got licences and the use of illegal nets by people who have got licences that is doing the damage—that coupled with poaching and pollution. I look forward to the implementation of the new legislation to curtail those illegal activities. The Minister can rest assured that he will get every assistance from this side of the House.
The former Parliamentary Secretary in charge of Fisheries, Deputy Murphy, has been slated at times for having issued too many licences. I believe he adopted a very humane approach. The salmon fishing industry can survive with the amount of licences available at the moment if they are properly looked after and properly supervised.
During the past ten years it seems to have been a policy of the Department of Fisheries to develop a small number of large harbours. There is one such harbour in Dunmore East, County Waterford, and I believe Castletownbere was also developed on a very large scale. Those developments are now complete. The Department of Fisheries should embark on a scheme to provide a number of smaller harbours in key areas. If we are to get the type of expansion we are looking for in our fishing industry we must allow more boats to put to sea and more men to fish. At the moment tens of thousands of people around the coast would fish on a fulltime basis if they had the opportunity to do so. The harbours which they use are only fit for taking boats in and out in the summertime. They are not allweather harbours.
The Minister should bring in a rational programme so that every man who wishes to go to sea on a fulltime basis is afforded the opportunity. I have seen frustration among part time fishermen who see what is being made by people fishing out of the large ports. They have not got an equal opportunity. I would like to see a programme drawn up to provide safe harbours, not necessarily huge modern ones such as we have at Dunmore East, but harbours with the bare facilities. Thousands more people could come into the industry if such a programme were introduced.
Has the Minister any intention of promoting mariculture around our coasts? It has become obvious in recent years that there is a great future for mariculture. I believe the Russians plan to provide the bulk of their fish needs by 1990 through the use of mariculture. When one considers the extent of the Soviet Union one realises that they must have some vast undertakings in mind. Have any officials of the Department been studying the methods adopted by the Russians or by the Norwegians? I believe the Norwegians are very skilled in this type of activity. They supplied Europe and Great Britain with large quantities of salmon during the past season through the medium of mariculture.
There is no place better suited in western Europe than Ireland for such an undertaking. The west coast with its huge harbours and inlets is a natural centre for that type of operation. We have obviously lagged behind. While it is not possible to rear every species of fish by this method the most valuable can be reared, such as salmon, trout, lobster and other forms of shellfish. We should develop this industry to the full. I wish the Minister the best of luck in achieving the target we have put before us in doubling our 1975 catch by 1979. I do not believe we are going the right way about it. We will have to be far more dynamic and energetic in our approach.
This is of necessity a limited debate. A time limit applies and the limitation applies in respect of scope to deal effectively with the fisheries policy. The Supplementary Estimate before the House deals with very few matters. Mainly it deals with providing for essential moneys to meet increased costs in salaries and wages. There is, unfortunately, nothing in the Supplementary Estimate of a meaty kind dealing with the real problems of the industry—the need to expand and the need to preserve stocks.
Some additional moneys are being provided for An Bord Iascaigh Mhara for wages and salaries and also for current development to enable the board to expand their activities. I would like the Minister's assurance that the £2,575,000 being provided is sufficient to bring back some semblance of security to all those employed with BIM, especially those in the boatyards under the board. I hope the Minister can assure us that he has provided sufficient money to ensure continuity of employment for all the men employed in those boatyards and that there is sufficient work for them in building new boats.
Widespread concern was displayed by the board and their members recently—graphically demonstrated by public protest, especially in Cork— about possible redundancy, the fall-off in orders for the building of boats and, by and large, the feeling of depression regarding the overall future for the industry. This concerns such fundamental matters as the provision of a proper fishing zone, which is agreed by all to be a minimum of 50 miles, and in addition other important factors in respect of a policy for the expansion and preservation of fisheries. I trust that the anxiety being experienced by all those employed by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara will be laid by the provision of this Supplementary Estimate and that the future will look brighter for them. In recent months there has been an obvious lack of confidence in regard to the future on the part of all those employed by the board.
I notice that grants of £69,000 have been approved by the EEC in respect of a number of fishery harbours. I would be grateful if the Minister would elaborate on that item and indicate where the moneys are likely to be spent. Also, he might tell us what future development can be envisaged in terms of grants being made available by the EEC for the improvement of harbour facilities. I agree fully with the previous speaker in respect of the need for the improvement of our harbours. Apart from the prospects of much greater catches we envisage the Minister implementing a policy which will provide facilities for the processing at Irish ports of large quantities of the fish caught in Irish waters. In other words, we look forward to the establishment of fish processing plants and ice plants with all modern amenities. Development of this kind will provide extra employment for our people at home but proper harbour facilities are a prerequisite to development of that kind.
The estimate deals largely with the provision of money for expenses such as salaries and wages. In this regard I note that there is a sum of £44,000 to meet the increased cost of salaries, wages and allowances arising from pay increases granted under the national pay agreement. There is a further excess of expenditure of £40,000 which arises in respect of travelling expenses and is due mainly to the increased volume of travelling in connection with EEC matters. The House and the people generally would no doubt like the Minister to avail of this opportunity to tell us what progress, if any, was made during his talks last weekend in Brussels. What is the present position regarding Ireland's essential claims? I trust that he will tell us, too, whether all this travelling in which he has been engaging for so long will continue while the situation remains that, despite all his trips to Brussels, Strasbourg, Bonn and so on, nothing tangible is resulting either for the fishermen or for the industry generally. Or is it the position that effective control of our fisheries is receding fast from us, that all the major decisions are being made in Brussels and that the sovereign right of this Parliament to control the destiny of the nation and, in particular, of the very important fishing industry, is almost gone and gone effectively in respect of fundamental matters? The matters we are talking about here are of a minor nature. Apart from aid to Killybegs and Castletownbere ports and some essential aid to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara there is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate that touches the fundamentals or the real issues affecting the fishing industry.
Is it the position that our rich fishing territory is about to be virtually confiscated by our EEC partners and that we are almost helpless in dealing with that situation, that, in particular, we are defenceless in regard to asserting our right to a 50-mile exclusive zone. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to report to us, limited as the time is for this debate, on these questions.
In order to give the Minister adequate time to reply I intend concluding shortly. He will then have an opportunity of touching on the essential matters with which we are concerned primarily.
It is not my wish to suggest that the Minister is a prisoner of his eight European colleagues, caught up in some form of straitjacket from which he would not appear to be able to extricate himself on the important issues of the 50-mile exclusive zone and a proper preservation and expansion policy for the industry. We should like to hear when decisions on these matters are likely to be reached. I am prepared to prophesy that before not too long we shall witness a shameful sell-out on the fundamental issue of a 50-mile exclusive zone.
The Deputy referred a few moments ago to the debate being very limited but he is now finding a way around it although nobody understands the position better than Deputy Treacy.
I take the point but I considered myself entitled to ask the Minister to comment on what transpired in Brussels arising out of that part of the Supplementary Estimate which provides for additional moneys for travelling expenses especially in connection with EEC matters. Presumably, the Minister travels to Brussels and to other parts of Europe and of the world primarily and essentially in respect of fishery matters. It is not my intention to find a way around the matter but after this week the Dáil will not resume business for several weeks. In the meantime the nation is entitled to know, now that a suitable opportunity has presented itself for informing them, what is happening in respect of fisheries. I am inviting the Minister to comment on the questions I have raised and to tell us what hopes he may have for a better deal for Ireland in respect of all matters relating to fisheries, with particular reference to the achievement of nothing less than a 50-mile exclusive zone.
To deal with the last issue first— although it is not quite pertinent to this very modest Supplementary Estimate that is designed to tide over fisheries in the financial sense to the end of the financial year—the fisheries talks taking place with our Community partners, are still in a negotiating position. When in a negotiating position one does not spell out in detail the various nuances, tactics and developments that arise in the course of negotiation. I have made our position prefectly clear. We are seeking with our partners to arrive at a Community solution. It must be remembered that as far as Ireland and every other member state are concerned, it is important to seek to achieve a Community solution.
The Irish people by referenda in 1972 decided that issue for us and we have derived substantial benefits from our membership of the EEC since 1st January, 1973. It is a futile exercise to suggest that we can make declarations on our own in this area or in any other area. In this area we must participate with our Community partners in seeking to achieve a legitimate solution. We can and have argued our case strongly, but we must seek to achieve agreement. I do not propose to go into any of the nuances of the negotiations as they stand at present except to say that as of now seven of the nine Community countries do not agree with two Community countries, Great Britain and Ireland, who, in their different ways seek a form of exclusive zone. Our case differs from the British case in many ways. We have differing interests, but on the issue of having a form of exclusive zone both Britain and Ireland agree. I have made the position clear and until the negotiations resume in January that will be the position. It is very difficult to see a way out of a situation like that and that is why last year interim negotiations for 1977 had to be the order of the day, in order to prevent a free-for-all. This year that may again be the position. We may have to have interim arrangements based on quotas to prevent a free-for-all situation and to have some form of regime in the absence of agreement between all nine.
Deputy Treacy raised the question of the boatyards and the sufficiency of work. In regard to the boatyards the position has improved substantially since the introduction of the recent terms in respect of the purchase of boats. As the House is aware, I announced these improved terms some weeks ago and the result of these— the reduction in the deposit from 10 per cent to 5 per cent in the case of boats between 66 feet and 90 feet, the extension of the repayments period from eight to twelve years, linked with the new repair grant of 50 per cent towards the cost of the conversion of boats to new methods of fishing allied to the existing 25 per cent grant in respect of new boats, embodied in the new scheme—is a new impetus in regard to orders. Orders are now coming into the boatyards, orders that will sustain Baltimore and Killybegs during 1978 and hopefully orders coming into Dingle will also sustain that yard. That is limited good news that I am glad to be able to give the House.
Deputy Treacy raised a point with which I agree, but which was contrary to the point made by Deputy Deasy, that processing needs to be sustained. Shore employment is of tremendous importance as regards the building of the fishing industry. Shore employment runs at six to one properly developed compared to boat employment, especially with the increased mechanisation and automation of modern boats. I see no objection to developing shore employment based on landings by boats from outside this country. That is a healthy development. As regards the Icelandic landings in New Ross for processing there, that have been referred to, they will be for re-export into Britain and other parts of the Community.
With all due respect, I cannot agree with the Minister. It just points out the run-down state of our fishing industry.
The Deputy is taking a negative view. I agree with Deputy Treacy's view that one must be positive in this respect. In any regime in the future I would like to see the ideal situation as one where we would license outside boats to land here for processing and re-export. That surely would be a healthy development in the employment sense. Indeed, the Congress of Irish Trade Unions intimated this view to me through the Irish Transport Union, which is the main union catering for deck hands working on fishing boats.
It would be a wonderful thing if we had a fully developed processing industry where we barely have a processing industry.
We cannot have a debate across the House.
The Icelandic vessels referred to by Deputy Deasy are not being allowed to land in the UK but are landing in New Ross for processing and for re-exporting to the UK and France and are giving employment there. I see nothing wrong with that type of development. In any fishing plants or licensing arrangements we may have here in the future I see such arrangements being part of the fishing scene, a scene where we specifically license boats from outside countries to land here for shore employment purposes. That is an excellent arrangement to run side by side with the development of the Irish fishing fleet. There is no contradiction between the two provided we develop the processing part to a sufficient extent to absorb such landings in that way. The Irish fishermen agree with me in this respect.
Deputy Deasy, there should be no interruptions while the Minister is concluding.
Deputy Treacy referred to the question of the EEC grants to harbours. The situation, I am glad to say, is that these grants have been approved or are in the course of approval at the rate of 25 per cent to harbours other than the major harbours. This point was also made by Deputy Deasy. I will name the harbours concerned by way of illustration: Ballyglass in County Mayo, Portmagee and Cahirciveen in County Kerry, Quilty in County Clare and Greencastle and Clogherhead in Donegal and Louth. These grants are being made available by the EEC towards harbour development in smaller landing areas outside the major harbour development which is being financed entirely by capital resources.
Deputy Deasy made a very constructive speech on opening the debate on the Estimate. I appreciate very much his view that the emphasis must be on conservation. This is an area which has been neglected, certainly in recent years, an area in which no attempt has been made to grapple with this very vital problem affecting the fisheries—and this is not just in Ireland but on a global basis. It is not just Ireland that has been neglectful; bigger countries than Ireland have been equally neglectful, as witness the total ban than exists this year and will exist next year on herring fishing in the North Sea, which was once one of the great herring fishing areas of the world. The North European and East European countries have fished that sea out of herring and it has to be rehabilitated. We have a similar problem in the Celtic Sea adjacent to Deputy Deasy's constituency, where because of overfishing and the threatened extermination of the herring stocks, we have a ban operating off the south-east coast in the Celtic Sea and we will continue to operate that ban.
As Deputy Deasy suggests, these conservation measures and this ban will of course affect the total catch, and our total catch figures cannot be as high as anticipated two years ago in the Hague Agreement. The total catch figure cannot be as high as that because of the herring fishing bans operating in an absolute way in the Celtic Sea and in a very limited way around other areas of the coast on the west and north-west. This applies to Britain and to Western Europe generally. However, that should not worry the House or anybody concerned with the development of the Irish fishing industry, because in a situation like this conservation must come first. It is a case where one must forget about targets and plans, get down to the first essentials and get priorities right. There is no point in having paper plans for this industry or projections or targets if there are no fish there at the end of the day. It is as realistic and as brutal as that: unless we give priority to conservation there is not much point in talking about planning further industries because you would be planning on paper with no industry.
It is not merely an Irish problem or a Community problem; it is tending to be a world problem. It is a particular problem for the North Atlantic generally and for the European Community in particular. If we cannot face up to this challenge of conservation of our fish resources it will be a very sad reflection on a Community who have come together for the purpose of co-ordination in the common interest. Here is a basic challenge facing the Community to conserve fish stocks, which are a basic food resource and therefore very important. Fish will be a source of protein for the 300 million people shortly to be within the Community. If we fail to grasp this challenge and have an ordered regime within Community waters for the supply of this basic food resource, the Community will have failed in a very essential and important aspect of aspect of what Community is supposed to be about.
Deputy Deasy, in referring to conservation, omitted to mention what is in my view the most important aspect —helping to rehabilitate fish stocks. It is not the small matter of the unilateral measures taken by the last Government, which went on for a few months and have now been proved wrong as far as the European Court is concerned—that will probably be finalised tomorrow when there will be a court hearing. The important decision was the Community decision taken on 1st January of this year to have the 200-mile limit enforced against all foreign countries. That has kept the leading fishing countries out of malpractices, out of Community waters. These are the Russian, East European and the Japanese boats who were scooping up the fish—irrespective of size—for factory processing purposes, for industrial purposes and purposes other than human consumption. That has stopped and this has had a very good effect on the fishing, despite the comments about the fishing industry and how it is going. We have had a very good year this year off the north-west and west coast, and the south-west coast to some extent, in both herring and mackerel. There has been a very real revival in mackerel fishing right around the coast of Ireland, south-west to north-west. That is directly attributable to the fact that mackerel are now flowing into our shores, whereas they were being scooped out by the Russians and Eastern European ships until they were excluded on 1st January this year. That is a very important Community measure which is having a very positive effect now.
The other points made by Deputy Deasy concerned the training scheme. I agree with him. I am not satisfied about the training scheme. I hope to be able to make an announcement very shortly on a reorganised training scheme with, as he suggests, training and education facilities for fishermen around the coast at centres other than Greencastle. I hope in the New Year to announce the details. I agree with his criticism of the lack of skipper participation as against fisherman-trainee participation.
I agree also with Deputy Deasy that the real problem in relation to salmon fishing does not arise in regard to the inadequacy of the law or of regulations, although they can and will be improved in the course of new legislation and regulations which I will be introducing in the House in the New Year. The main problem is the blatant illegal fishing that is going on under the existing law. I propose to have the Navy in to assist the various fishery officers already employed by boards of conservators to ensure that there is an effective service when the new salmon season starts. Enforcement is the answer here, very strict enforcement in the early days of a new salmon season to warn people that we will not tolerate the extermination of the salmon stocks and that action is being taken and will be seen to be taken.
Deputy Deasy raised the question of mariculture, and that is an aspect which will be dealt with in legislation in the New Year. Progress has been made now in a fairly substantial way by the ESB and Messrs. Guinness Ltd. In two separate areas in the West of Ireland substantial progress has been made in the artificial rearing of salmon. There are cages at sea in which the salmon run is being simulated and a product is now being developed which is, we think, as good as natural salmon. This is a tremendous development and breakthrough. One of the difficulties at the moment is that there is at present no legal basis for mariculture in Ireland, which is a very serious inadequacy.
In other words, you can invest millions of pounds but you have not title to the salmon reared in this manner at sea. The new legislation I referred to will provide the framework for the development and investment that is required in this area. It is evident that our coast and climate, particularly our western coast, present the ideal environment for trout and salmon rearing. If the job can be done by artificial means in a natural environment we will be able to tap huge resources. The Norwegians and the Japanese have experimented a great deal in this field. The ESB and Arthur Guinness & Company have already done substantial development work and have now arrived at the stage where their research will take off.
There is great scope in regard to shellfish development which can be encouraged by up-to-date scientific methods. At present there is such a development in Cork Harbour in which BIM are involved and it has been very successful. A co-operative in Fenit, County Kerry, are involved in an oyster-bed development which is also very successful.
A lot of attention is being devoted to deep-water fishing, limits and so on, but the fish resources adjacent to our coast could be our most important resource of all. It is our responsibility to ensure the rehabilitation and development of our salmon, sea-trout, brown trout and shellfish stocks. We cannot blame the foreigner or anybody else if we neglect these stocks.
One of the few fruitful matters to emerge from the conferences I have attended since I became Minister for Fisheries emerged from a conference in late October. We achieved a substantial objective in that the Community has recognised the right of each member state to what are called localised fisheries. A member state can take any action that is needed to deal with localised fisheries. The scale has not yet been fixed for these fisheries but it is hoped that it will be within 12 miles of the coast. Within that zone we can do what we like with these fisheries. This is an important achievement and sufficient attention has not been given to it.
We were hoping for a 50-mile limit.
It is in this area that there is great scope for the future. It is an area that tends to be forgotten in the general talk of further limits.
What are the Minister's views on purse seining?
I agree with the Deputy that it is undesirable. It is prohibited in regard to herring within 12 miles. Purse seining for herring is illegal. Up to 200 miles in the Celtic Sea outside the limit it is prohibited as well. I intend to introduce a series of regulations in the new year in regard to netting for white fish and purse seining will be included. There is an undue amount of netting of white fish around the coast at present. It has been blatantly abused by the French in particular, who have engaged in doubtful practices in regard to netting white fish. The Commission have introduced regulations along these lines, to have netting practices that allow sufficient escapement for the renewal of stock. That is basically what conservation is about. In regard to white fish, I am satisfied that the use of narrow mesh has been a big factor in reducing stocks. I agree with the Deputy's view on purse seining. It is an anti-conservation form of fishing. Is that the only point the Deputy has?
Yes.
In conclusion. I thank the House, particularly Deputies Treacy and Deasy. The debate has been limited but I can assure the House that there will be an opportunity to debate this matter in the new year.
