Deputy Begley is in possession and he has 15 minutes.
Estimates, 1983. - Vote 34: Fisheries (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £18,752,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1983, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, including sundry grants-in-aid.
—(Minister for Fisheries and Forestry).
I was saying last night that there is a complete lack of confidence in Bord Iascaigh Mhara on the part of fishermen. Frustration has been building up in fishermen over a period of years. The first retrograde step taken by BIM was when they opted out of the marketing of fish. There is little or no supervision by BIM or by any agency of the State now on some of the buyers of fish. It is disgraceful in the extreme that as lately as four weeks ago fish buyers could issue cheques with nothing behind the cheques and really take the Howth fishermen to the cleaners. I am quite sure the Minister or the Minister of State has seen a photostat of some of those dubious cheques. It is indeed a sad state of affairs for the industry when these fly-by-night buyers can operate at will, and I would hope that from today onwards at least some precautionary measure will be taken.
In response to parliamentary questions some time ago I was informed that 75 per cent of all the fishing fleet in this country was in arrears. That is indeed a sorry mess to be in. If that trend continues I have no reason to believe otherwise than that the fishing industry is doomed for all time. There is a crying need at present for a rescue agency such as Fóir Teoranta to look after fishermen and I ask the Minister or the Minister of State to set up such an agency. Can anyone in this House visualise the hardship, humiliation and the anxiety of a fishing family and their relatives who have been fishing for years when they see their trawlers repossessed and taken out of the harbours? We are going back to the penal days when the landlord sent his men to batter in the door and the tenants were evicted.
Since 1980, 20 trawlers have been repossessed and the loss to the State of the repossession and resale is almost £3 million. Of the 20 boats which were repossessed, nine were resold to Irish fishermen. There was no mention of how the others were disposed of. Some of those boats which were repossessed over the years have been left to rot in harbours and been written off as bad debts by BIM in their annual accounts. It would be better if the fishermen who originally owned these boats were allowed to continue fishing and given advice as to how they could meet their arrears.
Let no one construe from my remarks that I am in favour of people who get a boat, drink the money and make no effort whatsoever to repay their loan. However, I know that 98 per cent of the repossessed boats are repossessed for genuine reasons. A little sympathy, concern, understanding and maybe a little psychology should be shown to fishermen who are in this predicament. The time has come for officials of BIM, civil servants in the Department of Fisheries and the Minister to leave Dublin occasionally and head for Castletownbere, Caherciveen, Dingle, Achill Sound, Killybegs and Galway and listen to the fishermen explaining their point of view and the difficulties they have in meeting their repayments. When the Minister is appointing members to BIM I hope, from now on, that it will be done on a regional basis and that every area will be represented and every shade of opinion will be respected at board level.
It is no wonder the fishermen are frustrated when they see Spanish trawlers shooting off their bow capturing all kinds of fish, and yet there is no monitoring on those catches. How many times has an Irish fishery official gone aboard Spanish trawlers to inspect their catches? It is very significant that the catch of one boat which came into Castletownbere recently was discovered to have 60 per cent of under-sized fish. What about the Spanish trawlers fishing within our limits who are legally entitled to a quota because some of them have traditional rights there? They head straight back for Spain. Is their catch ever inspected? Has any Irish official ever gone to the trouble of seeing that the catch of that trawler is inspected in Spain if he was not prepared to board the trawler off Achill Island or Inishvickillaune?
Fishermen know there has been little or no supervision of the total Spanish fishing operation off our coast. How many times has the gear been inspected? How many Spanish trawlers have been brought into port and prosecuted because they have illegal fishing gear on board? Did anyone hear of such a prosecution? No, we do not care because the fishermen have not much political muscle. More than likely, they will be fishing the day of the election and they will not make any great difference to the result. We abandoned the 50 mile limit and then we came down to 12 miles. Was it not a shame that, for the first time in the history of the State, some of our fishermen were sent to jail by the Fianna Fáil Government because they were fishing herrings in the Celtic Sea? These men were left to rot in jail because they caught a few herring off Kinsale Head. At the same time, other trawlers could fish right beside them and there were no prosecutions because no fishery official had the proper equipment such as wearing apparel specially designed for going into deep freeze stores which some of those Spanish, French and Dutch factory ships have. Why was this situation allowed to continue?
I appeal this morning to the Minister of State to make sure that there will not be a recurrence of this. Everyone in this House expects to see legislation brought in before the recess which will prohibit the flags of convenience being flown by third countries. At least that will be a small token of our concern for the fishermen. I cannot understand the reason for the delay in introducing this legislation. It has been mentioned here at least seven times in the last ten weeks and we are promised it day after day.
The Department of Labour should look into the matter of Spanish trawlers re-registered in Ireland and fishing in Irish EEC waters with Spanish crews, none of whom has a work permit. The Department of Justice are very quick to afford special facilities to captured Spanish trawlers, having an immediate special sitting of the District Court so that these trawlers can go out and catch more fish. I suggest to all the Departments concerned that these people take their place in the queue and await their turn for a trial. Why are they treated differently?
I appeal to the Minister of State to take a look at Dingle Harbour, at my own back door. The type of dredger sent there in 1972 was taken by lorry to Cromane and then went by sea to Dingle Harbour. The length of time it took to arrive and the amount of dredging which it carried out made it the joke of the century in the area. I have appealed here several times to the Department of the Gaeltacht under successive Governments to have this harbour dredged. Even at this late stage I make a final appeal. Dingle harbour is tidal and if the channel is not kept clear the fishermen cannot gain entrance. The amount of money already spent on repairing the torn keels of boats using the harbour is unbelievable.
Any remarks which I have made in this debate were not intended to be a reflection on the Minister for Fisheries or his Minister of State.
The Deputy is backing down now.
I am not backing down an inch. Deputy Daly put the fishermen in their present state. He has not much to say for himself at all.
Deputy Begley is supporting his Minister today.
These Minister are in office four months. I am not running away from anything. I will stand over what I said.
Spare us this.
At least what I have said I can stand over. Deputy Daly will stand the test of time.
The Minister scared the Deputy last night.
The Minister did not scare me. I did not do the shabby thing that Deputy Daly did — put the fishermen in jail. He promised that he would go to see them and he never did.
Ba mhaith liom an deis seo a ghlacadh chun comhgháirdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire Stáit, Deputy Michael D'Arcy, agus leis an Aire é féin, Deputy Paddy O'Toole, as ucht iad a ainmniú mar Aire agus Aire Stáit don Roinn Iascaigh, Foraoiseachta agus na Gaeltachta, agus a chinntiú don Aire go bhfaighidh siad gach cuidiú ón taobh seo den Teach más rud é go bhfuil sé ar mhaitheas gach duine atá baint aige le tionscal na hiascaireachta.
I am only too well aware of the importance of the forestry and fisheries industries. Their potential is far from being realised. If the proper measures are taken, however, the full potential of these industries can be realised, but urgent measures must be applied in a number of critical areas. It is important to point out that the raw materials on which both these industries are based are renewable resources and renewable resources must at all times be conserved.
That brings me to the subject of conservation. We must ensure that all our fishery stocks are conserved, including all types of fish — salmon, shelfish, all white fish, herrings and, at the moment, particularly mackerel. We must ensure that the conservation programme is implemented, uniformly enforced and monitored by the EEC. I hope that the EEC base will be here on our west coast but I shall refer to that later.
I pose a suggestion which I have made on numerous occasions in the past — that all boats fishing within EEC waters should have observers on board to monitor all the catches and ensure that quotas are not exceeded. If quotas are exceeded — and I am speaking in a European sense — the death knell of the fishing industry will be sounded.
In addition to monitoring quotas, these observers could ensure that scientific knowledge is made available to the industry. That would serve a useful purpose in making availble such knowledge as the type of gear used, the water temperature, the plankton content of the water and aids in detecting spawning areas and the location of other species of fish. They could do all this in their capacity as observers on behalf of the European Community, building up this bank of scientific knowledge which would prove invaluable to the industry. The Minister should try to ensure that all that information is fed back to a base which should be located on our west coast, not because we want it to be based in Ireland but because that is the best and most advantageous location for it.
If we adopted this suggested system, it would ensure that only the total allowable catch recommended by the scientists would be landed, thus enabling the supply of all types of fish to be sustained. We must ensure that the scientific knowledge is given to us earlier in the year. For many years it has been made available too late. It is not the fault of any Minister, but it is ludicrous that now, at the end of June 1983, we are discussing the 1983 quotas, instead of those for 1984. It is time that we ensured that these quotas are discussed earlier in the year.
We should strive to add more value to all our products in the fishing industry. This would create much more employment ashore. I am realistic enough to know that it would be a fallacy to suggest that that could be done overnight and that fish packets could be produced ready for the shelf in a short period. All assistance should be given and processers encouraged to add as much value as possible, so that more people have jobs ashore. This would be preferable to exporting fish in the raw state, making jobs available elsewhere, within or outside the EEC. I realise that there are marketing problems attached to any developing industry when one is competing against the professional, established multinationals. However, we must first strive to go up the added value scale in the hope that at some time in the future we will see ourselves at the top of it.
There is urgent need for greater co-operation within the industry, possibly through a type of council. This could embrace the various sectors of the industry — the catching, processing, marketing and service sectors. It would have the backing of the Government and the Department. They would meet frequently and have discussions with the Department of Fisheries. I have respect for the officials of the Department but a council such as this would be a tremendous asset to them. It would involve various people who have practical experience and include the Irish Fisherman's Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation. I compliment these bodies on their dedication and commitment to the industry. They should have discussions not only with the Department but with BIM. Reference was made to BIM by Deputy Begley and I have no doubt that the Minister will answer all the criticisms made, some of which I agree with and many of which I do not.
The price structure in Europe, for historical reasons, is not sufficiently flexible to take account of changes in the market situation. It is unfair that duty free fish in a frozen state are brought into the EEC from countries such as Canada. This is affecting our competitiveness in Europe. We must ensure that this structure is altered to meet the changes in the market supply within the Community. Sufficient allowance should be made in price negotiations to take account of freight costs and in particular our geographical location. We are two sea crossings away from the main markets in Europe and in third countries. We are in a less competitive position than North Scotland or Plymouth where they are only one sea crossing from the main European markets. The price is similar in Donegal or Kerry or anywhere along the coast where mackerel and so on are caught. The cost of freight is as high as £65 a tonne so that in other countries they have that advantage over us. Third countries should not be in a position to compete with us and so affect the price we obtain on the Continent. As a result processors are paying a lower price to fishermen and, irrespective of the price of fish, at the end of the day the fisherman suffers. The processors can buy accordingly and it is the fishermen who have to take the brunt of the reduction in the price.
When the Minister goes to Europe and any time he gets an opportunity he should ask the Commission to consider a price support for the industry comparable to that available for the agricultural industry. It may well be suggested that we cannot compare fishing with agriculture. If such a suggestion is made in Europe and if it is said that the differences are too great, the reason will be the attitude of the Europeans towards the fishing industry. They always considered agriculture to be more important to them and consequently we are the sufferers. Farmers receive a favourable hearing from the EEC while the fishing industry have only received limited support over the years.
Deputy Daly referred to a national policy last night. I am disappointed, having heard the Coalition Government suggest that immediately we had a Common Fisheries Policy this would be a base from which to develop a national policy, there was not one iota in the contribution made by the Minister last night to suggest there was any intention to bring a national policy before us. A Common Fisheries Policy can only be used as a base and is only useful if we develop a national policy. Deputy Daly referred to this last night so I will leave it at that.
There is a general proposal to reduce EEC quotas by one third. We cannot accept this nor could we afford it. As regards mackerel, a reduction from 80,000 tonnes to 55,000 will not be acceptable. We will give the Minister every assistance from this side of the House in opposing this. He must be as vociferous as is necessary to ensure that not only do we obtain the 80,000 tonnes we had last year but he has an obligation to veto any contrary decision and ensure that he comes back with a minimum of 100,000 tonnes. That is what we require. Like other countries, we exceeded the quota last year. That is indicative of the need for an increase. It was necessary for fishermen to take in extra mackerel to ensure they could meet the repayments on their boats.
When Fianna Fáil were in Government we were told on numerous occasions that we had agreed to give 7,000 tonnes to the Danes. We received no credit for anything we did which was right when the Common Fisheries Policy was signed. We did not agree to give the Danes 7,000 tonnes. That decision was wrong. Hopefully we can accept the Europeans for what they are worth when they say that it is a once-off situation. Over that period the Danes took 14,000 tonnes out of our waters. If they were in a position to exceed the quota of 7,000 tonnes how can we believe they will not come in this year and take a substantial quantity of fish as well? We must make sure they do not get in. If they do come they must be taken to court and penalised. I am not worried about the Northern section because the British are in a position to monitor the boats there. They have all the facilities necessary. We also should have the facilities. When in Government it was our intention to build a new protection vessel here and thus create further jobs. This was the subject of a Private Members' Bill discussed here the other evening so I do not intend taking up the time of the House in discussing it now except to say that the Government should be committed to further protection in this area and to ensuring that these foreign boats and third country boats particularly — the Danes and others — do not continue to plunder our seas.
If there is over-fishing, it is unfair that our fishermen should be expected to pay for the sins of other countries. If there are to be reductions in quotas, they should be on an equitable basis. We are not over-fishing our waters so it would be only fair that our fishermen be given an increase in the quotas instead of the Government taking the easy way out and slashing by one-third the quotas for every country. I hope that the quotas being talked of will not be accepted but I understand that the Department have introduced a management scheme allowing quotas per boat per week as follows: 55 to 70 foot boats landing 150 tonnes per week; 75 foot-plus boats landing 200 tonnes per week; 75 to 90 foot boats landing 300 tonnes per week and 90 foot-plus boats landing 500 tonnes per week. This is not acceptable. It would not pay the fishermen to go out to catch those quantities in any one week. The Minister must use any power of vetoing he may have in that regard.
The practicality is that 55,000 tonnes would be a sufficient quota only for four large refrigerated seawater boats. Each of those boats would bring in 12,000 tonnes per year. Therefore, we need a quota of at least 100,000 tonnes. In addition, 55,000 tonnes is far from sufficient so far as the processers are concerned. All along the coast from Kerry to Donegal and particularly at Killybegs, the processors have expanded their freezing capacity on the basis of increased landings. Apart from the private and public cold storage facilities in Dublin, the freezing facilities in these other areas would become obsolete.
If the Department introduce this 55,000 tonne quota, they will be attracting more freezing boats within a short period. Even in the context of a 100,000 tonne quota, consultations would have to take place with the fishermen and with the processors to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived for them.
As I said, we are not the offenders so far as over-fishing is concerned. Last year the Dutch had a quota of 35,000 tonnes but they went cap in hand to the EEC and expressed regret for having caught 36,000 tonnes, one tonne more than the quota. However, the Dutch Government claimed a subsidy from the EEC in respect of 190,000 tonnes. We might ask where the Dutch caught the extra 150,000 tonnes. They tell us that the fish was purchased from other countries within the EEC but that would not be too difficult to check out. These other countries give reasonable statistics to the Commission but the figures do not add up in the end. To claim export subsidy on 150,000 tonnes is indicative of what the Dutch propose doing. Their present building programme is a measure of their intentions. They have progressed from the 1,000 horse power vessel in respect of which the catch is about 30 tonnes to the 2,000 horse power vessel in respect of which the catch is 50 or 60 tonnes and then to the 4,000 horse power vessel which is in the process of being built and which is capable of freezing between 130 and 150 tonnes. We may ask what the Dutch propose doing with the 24,000 tonnes this year. I have no doubt but that they intend fishing these larger boats and catching in excess of what they caught last year. They are responsible, too, for the reduction in the export subsidy to third countries. That subsidy was of tremendous benefit to us but I believe that it is because the Dutch have claimed five or six times in excess of what they should have claimed that the Europeans have decided to reduce the subsidy on a sliding scale to countries such as Ireland. At the end of the day the fishermen are the people who are losing once again.
The Government must provide an export credit guarantee for our exporters. There is this sort of provision available to our main competitors, the Dutch and the British. In our case the export credit should be provided by the Industrial Credit Company with the risk being a great deal less now than it was in 1981-82. I would refer in particular to November of last year. The Minister and his officials must have been well aware of the gravity of the situation at that time when it appeared that the fishermen would have to terminate the season in mid-November because of the impossibility of exporting fish to Nigeria as a result of the difficulties with the export credit guarantee. If it had not been for the efforts of the then Minister, Deputy Daly, the situation would have been very serious. He, together with the then Minister for Finance, Deputy MacSharry, and the then Minister for Trade and Tourism, Deputy Flynn, took time off during the general election campaign in order to secure an agreement between the various exporters and the ICC to prevent the ending of the season at that time. While we may say that it was the duty of the then Ministers to act in the interests of the fishermen, I should like to congratulate them on behalf of the industry for what they achieved.
I am putting the Minister on warning at this stage in the season that the export credit guarantee is absolutely necessary. If he has not begun investigating it he should do so immediately. It is the Central Bank of Nigeria who carry the bulk of the risk.
I should like to refer also to the State-to-State arrangement with Egypt. That, too, was initiated by Deputy Daly as Minister. I was laughed at both inside the House and outside it when I suggested that the Minister go to Egypt to explore the market there but his subsequent visit proved successful. It is necessary now merely to consolidate the arrangement. There is tremendous potential so far as exports to Egypt are concerned but in the event of failure to provide export credit the industry will come to a standstill with our fleet having an outlet for no more than 25 per cent of the catch. This will go to the foreign freezing boats in respect of which there is no onshore refund. I understand that the factory at Castletownbere is being used now as a transit shed. This is not the purpose for which grants were allocated.
I am pleased to hear that at long last legislation will be introduced in relation to third country boats and to flags of convenience. The Minister has asked that that legislation be given a speedy passage through the House. It will get a speedy passage through the House only if it provides protection for all those involved in the industry.
We need more research and development in relation to the white fishing industry and more finance must be provided for conversion to the traditional type of fishing. The Minister spoke last night of the finance that would be available from Europe for the permanent and temporary laying-up of vessels to relieve over-capacity in the fleet. I would ask the Minister to give more details when replying. There is to be encouragement of exploratory fishing for new species but the Minister did not tell us that the size of boat must be in excess of 24 metres. There are many owners of smaller boats who would welcome an opportunity to be involved in exploratory fishing but unless their vessels exceed 75 feet they will not be able to take part. Larger vessels can participate in exploratory fishing well off shore but there are certain areas off the south and west coasts where smaller boats could carry out exploratory fishing.
The Minister stated that assistance would be provided towards the construction of new fishing vessels and the modernisation and conversion of vessels already in use, but he did not point out that this will apply only to boats of between 12 metres and 33 metres, that is, boats between 39 feet and 108 feet. What about the small half-deckers and boats which are larger than 108 feet? I believe the amount involved is in excess of 65 ECUs or £45,000. Perhaps some change might have taken place within the past few days. That sort of information is grossly misleading to the House and to the fishermen who believe that grants are available to them.
The Minister should also investigate the price of fuel and oil which varies from port to port. In Greencastle, far removed from Dublin, it is much cheaper than in Howth, while in Killala it is much cheaper than in Burtonport. The price of oil for fishing vessels should be similar in all ports.
Regarding salmon fisheries, we were given last night a figure of £3.4 million as the value of the salmon catch last year and this indicates the importance of the salmon fishery, particularly to the small half-deckers who cannot obtain any assistance from Europe or from FEOGA. Very few small boats obtain FEOGA grants. Salmon is vitally important to the small fisherman. We have a difficulty because many salmon are imported and it is difficult to detect the difference between the farm fish and the wild fish. Naturally the processor and smoker wants to purchase farm fish because this will ensure that he will not have to purchase all his raw material within a few months but can spread it over the year, thus reducing overheads. We must be very cautions in speaking about the salmon industry because it is a very sensitive area. Processors and smokers are not entirely dependent on salmon landings and the Minister must act with caution.
It is disgraceful that so little money was made available to BIM for the provision of new boats. I understand they are interested in making secondhand boats available to people who may not be particularly interested in such boats. When fishermen apply to BIM for small grants to repair their boats they may be refused but told that boats worth, perhaps, £200,000 may be made available to them. We cannot allow any official in BIM or the Department to pass the problem to the fisherman. The buck must stop with BIM, the Department and ultimately the Minister.
In 1979 the administrative costs of BIM amounted to £1.1 million and they had to write off only £200,000. In 1982 administrative costs amounted to £2.5 million and the write-off was £800,000. The increase in the amount written off is far greater than the increase in administrative costs. These figures are a glaring example of the problems within BIM.
In relation to herring, I regret that there has not yet been a decision to open the Celtic Sea. This decision should be taken by the Government and the EEC as scientists have recommended.
The Book of Estimates prepared by Fianna Fáil prior to leaving office provided that £20.5 million would be made available to the fishing industry. The Coalition reduced that figure to £18.75 million. For main fishery harbour works the figure was reduced from £4.25 million to £3.25 million. The port which has suffered most as a result of this cutback is Burtonport, a tidal port. The Minister should give a commitment that the necessary works will be included in the Estimates next year. The cutbacks are indicative of the attitude of the Coalition towards the west.
There is an urgent need for a home-based timber industry in Donegal. In the centre of the county there is a large area of forest and the maximum distance the timber would need to be transported is 45 miles.
The Chair has been informed by the Whips that there is a gentleman's agreement whereby this Estimate will conclude at 1.30 p.m. I have been given a list of speakers to whom short times have been allocated. I do not know whether or not Deputy Gallagher is included in this arrangement but I presume he is.
I respect the Chair and the Whips. This agreement is necessary because of the filibuster last night. There was a private arrangement that the debate would be finished at 10.30 p.m. but Deputy Begley took an hour. He is entitled to do that but he should respect the Chair. Perhaps the Government would have considered Deputy Begley's contribution as being from this side of the House. We have a better insight into the industry and a contribution such as that does not help.
The Chair does not consider that interventions such as Deputy Gallagher's are likely to promote a gentleman's agreement.
In regard to the forestry industry in Donegal, we should strive for a complete industry which will involve all materials, leaving no residue. We should produce stakes, post rail fencing, pallet wood and general construction materials and the accured waste could be compressed into briquetters for fuel. This would give employment to 20 or 30 people.
It is vital that the Minister should ensure that the fishery quota is not reduced from 80,000 tonnes but rather increased. I hope I have contributed in a constructive way and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Deputy Sheehan has 20 minutes.
I think it is 30 minutes.
Either there is an agreement or there is not.
Coming from a constitutency which depends to quite an extent on the fishing industry, it is only right to air the grievances of that industry.
Our four main industries are agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism, but throughout the years fishing and forestry have been treated as Cinderella industries. There has been a lot of talk but no action. There are more than 9,000 fishermen trying to earn a livelihood from fishing but there are only 2,600 people employed in the fish processing end. This is a sad reflection on an industry that should be generating more on-shore employment. It is a sad reflection on the people who are responsible but who have been letting the processing side drift into such a bad state.
In Denmark, for every one fisherman at sea there are eight engaged in on-shore processing. In all the other EEC countries except Ireland an average of five people are engaged in on-shore production for every one fisherman at sea. Here we have only half a person, on average, engaged in processing for every one fisherman. Our total catch was £44 million worth in 1982 of which only 2 per cent was finally processed. In 1982-1983 we imported more than £12 million worth of fish.
This again is a sad reflection on the handling of the processing industry. The vast majority of our exports of fish go out unprocessed, whole, frozen or fresh. We have some of the best fishing grounds in the world for mackerel, herring and cod. More than 80 per cent of our catches come from within the 12 mile limit, leaving fish such as blue whiting and hake virtually untapped by Irish vessels.
As well, we have the sad spectacle of millions of pounds worth of fish being dumped under the withdrawal policy dictated by the EEC. Almost 10,000 tonnes of fish was dumped in 1982, worth almost £1 million. One Kerry fisherman said that he dumped almost £80,000 of fish, mainly herring, between January and April last year. Why not get that fish processed and sent out as food to the starving millions in the Third World? Instead of giving hard cash to the Third World we should explore the possibility of getting the fish that is being dumped under the withdrawal EEC policy processed and sent to the Third World to feed the hungry there. Surely to heavens there is some other way to utilise the fish than dumping the God-given catches back into the water? It is an insult to both God and man.
I submit that we should build a fishmeal factory in Castletownbere. Most of the fishmeal processing is done in Killybegs and nothing has been done to cater for the south-west and the fishermen there. As well, BIM should explore the Middle East market for our processed fish. A huge potential exists there for marinated and smoked fish.
The fish processing industry needs skilled personnel and that means special training courses and a development plan. ACOT are training young farmers to become viable and AnCO are training young people to become tradesmen, but can we see BIM training our young people, boys and girls, to become efficient fish processors? No action has been taken in that respect. It is of vital importance that this training be given to our young people if there is to be a future for our fishing industry.
The quota proposals for 1983 represent a reduction on last year. This should not have been allowed to happen. The 1982 quota was entirely inadequate and therefore the latest proposal is disastrous. Why close certain areas for herring fishing for ten years or more when the average life of a herring is only five to seven years? It seems to me that an enormous number of herrings will die of old age in the closed protected areas of the Celtic Sea.
We see Spanish boats landing their catches in Ireland for trans-shipment to Spain for processing there, thereby enlarging their tonnage of catches pending their entry to the EEC. It is well known that undersized fish in abundance are being caught by those Spanish trawlers. Is it possible to get a minimum net, size on the Spanish boats operating off our coasts? The Spanish company in Castletownbere have four fishing boats, built in Spain, we are told with aid from the Irish taxpayers' contributions — money to build boats for foreigners but no money to build them for our fishermen.
It is well known that Spanish trawlers, re-registered in Ireland, fish in Irish waters with Spanish crews, none of whom has a work permit or has applied for one. If all those fishermen do not pay taxes here but earn their living here it seems only just that Irish fishing skippers are entitled to do likewise: they could apply for foreign crews who would not be liable for PAYE or PRSI payments.
As a fishing nation we have been given dwindling quotas from Brussels while the Spanish landings are included in our catch tonnage. That should not be so. The Spaniards have been doubling their landings. There is no proper monitoring of Spanish landings at Irish ports, not to mention their unsupervised fishing on the high seas. There has been very little overall supervision of Spanish fishing off our coasts. By comparison with monitoring of Irish catches there has been very little inspection of the Spanish. The same applies to inspection of gear. The original justification for permitting Spanish landings into Irish ports was to supply Irish processing plants. It has been proved long since that that was only a trick and was never meant to be. Are we now in total opposition to the establishment? In my opinion the Spanish boats are being paid a State sponsored subsidy for diesel because they are supposed to be fishing west of the 12º line. Any Irish employee on board any of the Spanish boats operating out of Castletownbere, the few who serve on those ships, can say that they were never more than 20 miles west of the Blaskets or Bull Rock instead of the required 140 miles.
As far as I can see BIM are in need of a complete revamp. Down the years they have been dragging their feet as far as the building up of the fishing industry is concerned. Few members know more about the fishing industry than I because I am a member of a fishing family. My late father exported marinated mackerel to the US long before I was born. After a night's fishing he worked at marinating the catch the following day. From my early years I was aware of the importance of the fishing industry to the survival of the people of west Cork. I know only too well that if we do not have a viable fishing industry here, particularly along the south-west and west coasts, those areas will be denuded of population within a few years. Small farmers and fishermen kept the economy going in those parts of Ireland. As Deputy Begley said last night, we are not blessed and never will be with huge industrial developments along the west coast. Their only industries are fishing, farming, forestry and tourism.
I have seen boatyards inhibited in their efforts to complete boats through lack of progress payments by BIM, a disgraceful state of affairs. Some boatyards have been inhibited because BIM failed to sanction grants for new fishing boats. The board, instead of taking into consideration the difficulties being experienced by those boatyards, are horse-trading about a few thousand pounds trying to force the boatyards to accept uneconomic prices for the building of boats. Surely that is not the treatment that should be meted out by BIM to the boatbuilding industry that is experiencing great difficulty in trying to maintain the work force. It is well known that if the Baltimore boatyard in south-west Cork does not get clearance for the building of a boat immediately it will have close with the loss of 100 jobs. If that happens the Exchequer will have to pay out £10,000 per week in dole, or £500,000 annually. Is that progress in the right direction? BIM stand indicated for their misconduct towards those who are trying to keep the industry going.
The Minister should clear up the mess he inherited and ensure that the jobs of those in that industry are maintained. He should ensure that they are not subject to horse trading activities by BIM. I cannot condone the decision of the last Government to make two political appointments to the board of BIM and I urge the Minister to do a Deasy-style operation on BIM, as occurred in Bord na gCapall. He should clear out the mess and get rid of the cobwebs in BIM and appoint people who understand the industry. The Minister should appoint people who understand fishing and fish processing to help build up the industry. I am amazed that there will be a cutback in the work scheduled for piers this year. It is well known that Schull pier in County Cork was to get priority in 1981. There was a change in 1982 and on Wednesday, 28 April 1982, in the course of a question to the Minister for Fisheries, Deputy Daly, I asked when work would commence on the extension to that pier. The Minister said in the course of his reply that tenders for the work were being examined and subject to the acceptance of a tender, work should commence towards the end of 1982. What has happened? The development work has not taken place.
The Deputy's own man scuttled it.
The Deputy's party were in power at the end of 1982.
Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick, when Minister for Fisheries, ensured that this work would get priority. Work was to start in 1982.
We would have started it but we were not in power.
I laugh when I hear Deputy Gallagher refer to Burtonport and not mention Schull. The people of south-west Cork will not stand for such treatment.
I have respect for Deputy Sheehan and I am aware that he is capable of speaking for his own area.
The people of south-west Cork will not accept such treatment at a time when £8.5 million is being allocated for the development of Howth Harbour. The pier at Schull is crumbling and falling. Schull has a long fishing tradition and I call on the Minister to commence work on that pier immediately. He should honour the commitment given by his predecessor, Deputy Fitzpatrick, and put the wheels of work in motion. I was not surprised to hear Deputy Begley refer to the fact that the unoccupied palace in Dún Laoghaire has gobbled up all the money that should have been devoted for the maintenance of piers throughout the country. The people of west Cork will not tolerate that treatment by a State-sponsored body.
Sufficient money has been spent on Howth Harbour and the remainder of the development there should be left for better days. Why are areas on the south-west coast penalised while Howth is developed? People in those areas must make a living also. It is well known that the processing of fish has failed hopelessly here. The Norwegians, Germans and Dutch have herrings in wine, brine, beer and tomato sauce but what do we have? We do not have anything but imports. Surely we can do something more and better on behalf of our fishermen than throwing their catches to the continental wolves.
I should like to ask the Minister what inspections or controls exist on the Russians, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Norwegians and the Spanish fishing fleets who are trawling inside the 50 mile box zone that was supposed to be established off our coast? I do not think anything is happening in that regard but all the surveillance is being devoted to our poor Irish salmon fishermen who can fish only 30 mesh nets that float to the surface. Those fishermen are inhibited from making a living. In the name of Heaven who is codding whom in this regard? I would like to make sure that justice is done and that our salmon fishermen are given a chance to make a living because they have only a very short season in which to work. The marauders of our salmon stock are the big trawlers operating from third countries. They take the salmon back to their countries for processing.
I have tried to emphasise what should be done to help fisheries, but there is a lot more still to be done. I call on the Minister and his Minister of State to brush the cobwebs out of the Department and BIM. I admit the Ministers inherited those problems. Nobody can blame them for the present situation.
They are covering up——
I am giving the facts. Fianna Fáil have sold the fishermen down the drain for centuries. It is time they listened to common sense. I invite the Ministers to come to Schull, Castletownbere, Dingle, Killybegs, Burtonport and the Aran Islands to meet the men who have practical experience of the fishing industry. I invite them to come to Schull or Castletownbere during the summer recess and I will arrange a day's fishing experience for them on one of our trawlers and I will accompany them on this trip. They will then see at first hand the rigours and hardship experienced by these men. They will see how difficult it is for them to bring their trawlers into Schull Pier, a pier which was supposed to be extended 30 years ago but still badly needs that extension. This is the only way the Ministers will get on the spot information about an industry that is almost untapped. It is time the Ministers found out the facts from the men on the ground. Do not listen to people who have only book information; they are not giving the real facts. I hope the Ministers will accept my invitation for a full day's fishing during the summer recess.
I welcome this opportunity to make a few brief comments on the fishing industry. We have heard from a number of eminent speakers already and I will not dwell on the points they raised. I refer the Minister to an editorial in The Cork Examiner, Thursday, 2 June 1983, which says:
...it is high time that some government became serious about a coherent Irish fishing industry rather than leaving the whole thing for unbalanced exploitation which profits too few and is not carried out in the national interest.
I would like the Minister to draw up a coherent plan for fisheries and, in particular, in the national interest.
I would like to refer to the situation on the south-west coast where the Spanish trawlers are doing very serious damage to the industry. On a few occasions recently I tried to raise this matter and the question of work permits with the Minister but was fobbed off. I was told it was not the responsibility of the Minister for Labour. I was told the Minister had no official responsibility for stating the law in relation to work permits for non-national crewmen. There are a few people trying to make a living from seasonal salmon fishing in Cork. Recently a fishery inspector said there were only 90 men pursuing the local tradition of salmon fishing because the fishermen were using illegal nets. It is about time this harassment of a few islanders trying to get a living from this industry stopped. We should have a system other than the confiscation of nets in operation. The Minister must be aware of people selling those nets and others buying the salmon catches. I cannot see why a quota system should not be introduced. It is very hard on a part-time fisherman if his gear is confiscated and his livelihood put in jeopardy, especially if one considers that if a quota system were in operation this would not happen very often. It should not be beyond the bounds of ingenuity to have such a system. We should legalise the use of these nets and allow these fishermen to fish until they have reached their quota.
I welcome the Minister's assurance that legislation will be introduced shortly to do something about third country fishermen, in particular the Spanish fishing vessels which are improving their quotas and damaging Irish local fishermen because of a technicality. I welcome the processing being carried out at Eirenova in Castletownbere, but those facilities are being used as a base for the trans-shipment of fish. I cannot see any justification for issuing additional licences to Spanish vessels as long as that processing industry is able to cater for only a small percentage of their catch.
I agree with my colleague, Deputy Sheehan, that BIM have acted irresponsibly towards the boat-building facility in Baltimore, west Cork. It took a deputation consisting of the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy J. O'Keeffe, Deputy Sheehan and myself to meet the officials of BIM and to wring out of them a progress payment on a vessel. I cannot see why it took three elected Members to get this progress payment. That kind of action in regard to outstanding boat-building facility is nothing short of irresponsible. I was delighted that the Minister of State was able to go down there himself and see the boat building facility and the outstanding work being done. I ask him to ensure that no technicality, bureaucracy, or red tape will cause that facility to be wound down or, perhaps, closed altogether. I ask him to look very seriously at that matter.
We have the famous problem of the pier in Schull. At least six Ministers in different Administrations have promised me and the House, in reply to parliamentary questions, that work on that pier would commence before the end of a particular year. I am sure that before I came here the very same promises were made and people were misled and codded up to the two eyes. This is a very important matter for a peninsular area. Unfortunately, the population is declining, and it would be a tremendous boost to the area if that job were done.
I had a question down in the past two weeks about this matter and I was told an underwater survey is being carried out now. I am sure everybody has heard of people having their heads in the sand, but having an underwater survey carried out after 30 years of acting the fool with the pier is asking too much of the patience of the people on the south-west Cork coast. If there is no commitment to do the job, why not say so? To talk about an underwater survey after 30 years is outrageous. If there is a preference for Howth or for palatial buildings in Dún Laoghaire, why not say so? Perhaps some regional fund or social fund could be tapped in Brussels when some visitations are made there to enable the project to get off the ground.
I want to refer to the amount of research and development in the fisheries industry. That is a very neglected area. I want to refer in particular to the only research vessel we have, the Lough Beltra, which was refitted fairly extensively recently. It is due to be laid up again at the end of this month. I cannot see how proper monitoring and development of the industry can take place without some degree of research. The NBST stated that it would cost £60,000 to keep that vessel in business. Surely that is not too much money to spend on one research vessel for a basic industry like fisheries.
I want to refer the Minister to the same editorial in The Cork Examiner. It states:
The hand-to-mouth existence which seems to be the life style of a great proportion of those currently engaged in fishing was exemplified earlier this week when the country's leading marine research scientist, Prof. Padraig O Ceidig, issued a last-ditch appeal to the government to provide adequate funding and structures to keep the marine research vessel Lough Beltra in operation. So far this year this vessel has only been used for about six weeks and it is currently engaged in oceanographic research work off the south west coast. At the end of the present month, however, it would have to be laid up because the National Board of Science and Technology, which has responsibility for the vessel, does not have sufficient funds to keep it in operation.
I appeal to the Minister to ensure that this vessel stays in business and to look at the possibility of having more co-ordinated research carried out in the fishing industry.
We have a multipilicity of agencies doing bits and pieces of research. The National Board for Science and Technology, BIM, the Department, An Foras Forbartha, and I am sure a dozen others. The Minister should try to achieve co-ordination in the whole research effort into the fishing industry. For a number of years I have been asking the Department of Fisheries what they are doing about a fishery research field station at Castlepark, Kinsale. That area was recommended as an ideal location for a fisheries research field centre. I keep getting the same old reply, that they cannot find the owner of the property. Surely between the resources of the Department of Fisheries and the Land Commission, it is possible to find the owner of that property. I ask the Minister to have a look at that matter.
There is tremendous potential in the area of aquaculture and fish farming. I hope the Minister will provide more funds for fish farming. On the south-west coast we have had a number of co-ops and people involved in oyster farming and mussel farming. At the end of the day they seem to run into trouble because of lack of expertise and lack of knowledge of the industry. In the long term, fish farming will become more and more important. Other speakers said it is virtually impossible to distinguish between native fish and farmed fish. The Minister should put a little more effort into that area.
It is scandalous that we imported in the region of £26 million worth of fish products in the past 12 months. That is an indictment of the people with responsibility for fisheries. I hope the Minister will ensure that every possible effort is made to process the maximum amount of fish caught in our waters. I cannot see why the technology in our food industry cannot be used in the fishing industry as well. In the food processing industry there has been a sort of a cave in against the amount of imports coming in. Erin Foods have capitulated to foreign imports of processed products. We have their factories in different parts of the country with their technology, their processing facilities and their expertise, and I cannot see why they cannot be used in the processing of fish products. Perhaps the Minister would have a look at that area as well.
I will be brief. I have heard about the debate on this Estimate and read about it before under previous Administrations. I am sure we would be unanimous in coming to the conclusion that there is no real, co-ordinated, overall, national policy for the fishing industry. The reason for this is that the Department have been treated as a virtual light-weight within Government structures over many years. For example, there is no real policy on the marketing of fish. In many towns you cannot buy fish. You can get tinned fish which has been imported, but you cannot get fresh fish in the majority of our towns. Very few of our towns have shops which sell fish even in well-known fishing areas. The Government must realise that this industry has a real employment potential if the will is there to do something positive about it.
The industry was given a body blow by the increase in the taxation on fuel which is an essential ingredient of the industry. Fishermen find it very difficult to earn a livelihood and pay back substantial loans for these very expensive boats. The problem about the development of piers in Cork is not unique. One of our longest established fishing ports is at Clogherhead pier. Clogherhead village and the surrounding area have depended economically on the fishing industry, fish processing, and so on, for over a century now.
Over the past ten years the repair of the pier at Clogherhead has been promised by Ministers in a number of different Governments. Ministers and MEPs have come down to the area, particularly prior to elections. We were always promised great things for Clogherhead prior to elections. I do not know how many times Ministers or potential Ministers have promised the replacement of Clogherhead pier prior to general elections. The main problem there also exists in Cork. We have only to consider the amount of bureaucracy involved in that particular subject. Louth County Council, the Office of Public Works, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry are involved in it. I received a reply yesterday to a question which I asked the Minister about the hydraulic model being investigated in UCD. Over a year has gone by and Louth County Council and various Ministers have promised that this report would be forthcoming. I was told in the reply I got yesterday that it is being finalised at University College, Cork. It will then go to the Office of Public Works, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Louth County Council and, like the last report, it will probably be passed back to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, the Office of Public Works, the Department of the Environment. We go round and round while very expensive, boats, which have been grant-aided by the State, are piling up at Clogherhead pier. This pier is totally inadequate to accommodate the fishing fleet there. Many of those boats have to go to other ports to berth. They have to go to Drogheda, Mornington and elsewhere. They are at the mercy of the bad weather. The lives of the fishermen are in jeopardy.
Clogherhead pier has been patched and patched like a patchwork quilt. That pier was built for £5,000 many years ago. Money was subscribed by the traders of Drogheda to erect that pier. It looks as if we will need to have a collection among the traders of Drogheda again if we are to get a replacement at Clogherhead. Would the Minister give a positive indication to the fishermen in Clogherhead that there will be a decision made on this in the very near future?
I would like to refer briefly to the forgotten people of the fishing industry, the net fishermen, those who earn their livelihood from salmon fishing on the various rivers. I would like to refer particularly to salmon fishing on the River Boyne which will become extinct unless there is some positive policy in relation to it. The shellfish industry at Mornington has been closed down because of pollution. People suffered as a result of pollution to the mussel beds and the shellfish industry there. The cause of this is domestic sewage. This shows the lack of co-ordination between different Departments. If the salmon industry is to survive on the River Boyne a sewage treatment plant is required. We are talking about the fishing industry but dealing with a different Department. I find, in relation to the fishing industry, that too many Departments are involved in it. Much more co-ordinated activity within the Department is required so that decisions can be taken and implemented quickly. This is an industry with great employment potential. It is one of the very few industries in the country with any potential for increased employment among young and old. Would the Minister take into consideration that the problems of the fishing industry are the same in Cork, Clogherhead, Howth and elsewhere? Would he do something positive in relation to the co-ordination of all the services?
I agree entirely with my colleague who referred to the question of research. There are a number of agencies dealing with research within the industry, all doing little bits and pieces but without any co-ordinated effort. My colleague forgot one important one in the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. They have carried out substantial research and investigation into fish processing. The money spent on that research is wasted because there is no overall co-ordinated body dealing with the fishing industry. Would the Minister take that into consideration?
This is the fourth change we have had in regard to the concluding time for this debate on the Fisheries Estimate. I understand it was to end some time last week, then it was to be 10 o'clock last night, then 12 o'clock today and now it goes on until 1.30.
The time is 1.15.
It is quite clear that the fishing industry is of very great significance even to Members of this House. In debating any Estimate for any Department we should have the health of the economy uppermost in our minds. Agriculture, tourism, fisheries and forestry are vital national assets. Do we give those areas the attention they deserve? The answer is that we do not. The areas I have just mentioned are of great importance and can create employment at very little cost. Why is it that we let things happen in those Departments rather than encourage their potential? If we directed the same energy and finance into those industries as we do in relation to other high cost industries with a high import level would the country not be in a better position?
The Irish fishing industry, as has been said here so often, is in a shambles with very little thought given to a direct policy. The industry is wandering aimlessly, reacting only to the jolt from the EEC, who are now permanently settled in our waters. Our fishermen have lost out heavily to their European counterparts for many reasons. The basis for a good fishing industry is good fishing grounds, which we have in abundance around our shores. Those must be protected. Foreigners have moved in to wipe the Irish fish and certainly the Irish fishermen off the map. We must stand up to this onslaught and we must not stand by and watch Spanish fishing trawlers flying a flag of convenience and taking the bread out of our mouths.
The activity of the Government in this respect has been disastrous. I would like to quote from a letter from the Minister for Fisheries in answer to a question about the provision of permits for such fishermen off our coasts. The letter states:
I have been informed by the Minister for Labour, Mr. Liam Kavanagh, TD, that the present position in relation to work permits for non-Irish EEC nationals engaged in off-shore activities is as follows:
(i) The Minister for Labour in the past required employers of non-Irish EEC nationals engaged in off-shore activities to secure a work permit for such employees.
Everybody accepts that. Then it continues:
(ii) As far as can be ascertained from a preliminary search of the Department of Labour—
—a preliminary search, mind you—
work permit records, employers of non-Irish EEC nationals engaged in off-shore fishing activities have not been issued with work permits for their employees.
That is from a preliminary search only and means that there are hidden drawers in that Department it would take an extra special effort to locate. The letter continues:
(iii) When and if applications are received from such employers, the Minister for Labour will seek legal advice under the Aliens Act, 1935,
—one would think it was spacemen we were talking about—
as to whether work permits are applicable with regard to the aforementioned fishing activities...
That says it all, in other words, that the present Government are afraid to take on these pirates. The pirates are clearing the wealth of our seas beneath our very eyes. Does the Minister intend taking on the EEC? Does he intend to let them know that as far as we are concerned our fishermen come first? Is he going to let them know that our fishermen are being robbed of their livelihood by these new pirates or cowboys of the high seas? They use the flag of convenience; maybe the Jolly Roger would be more appropriate. We in Ireland — and I say this of our Government also when we were in power — have been the gentle people of the EEC in almost every respect. This has been more evident in the fishing industry where it has been claimed by fishermen, perhaps with some justification, that we have sold them out to the Europeans. It is time to say that when our fishermen are accommodated we will consider allowing foreigners in, foreigners, mind you, whose only interest is to clean out and get out. Our fishing industry needs support. It is an area of vast potential both at sea and on shore. Our harbours are very little better than they were in the last century and this curtails fishing time.
I should like to comment now on the contribution of the Minister last evening. I was interested to note that Wexford, the south-east and very little of the south coast were mentioned at all. I am very disappointed at this particularly since the Minister of State comes from Wexford. Listening to the debate one would think that fishermen resided only off the west or south-west coast. There are fishermen all around our coasts with a great tradition in the industry, who have given their lives to the industry. Many speakers in this debate have fallen into the trap set for them by the Minister, the Department and by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, which is one of divide and conquer: if we can get the west to fight against the south-west and the south-east, if we have them fighting amongst themselves, then the Department and the Minister can get away with putting less energy into the industry. Surely if we are to succeed as a nation, if our fishing industry is to succeed, it must be accepted that our fishermen are sited right around our coastline. If we are to have a fisheries policy it must not be fragmented but rather one for the entire coastline.
Lest the south-east might be forgotten or that it might be felt there are no fishermen in the south-east, I should like to continue my contribution in relation to the south-east mainly. Recently there was a massive breach in the quay at Kilmore which was repaired on a temporary basis by Wexford County Council. The local authority are awaiting a grant from the Government to protect the pier and, if this is not forthcoming in the near future, we will not have a quay at Kilmore. I appeal to the Minister of State to make this money available in accordance with the philosophy that a stitch in time saves nine. The same port is in urgent need of dredging. At present skippers must await a full tide to go to sea and dredging would give them an extra two hours fishing when often those two hours can be the vital ones. Let us see some commitment to these fishermen in a growing port, one that has contributed much to the industry.
Recently a skipper fishing from Kilmore Quay, Mr. Billy Bates, sighted a submarine only yards from his trawler. Two days later a larger submarine was sighted by the crew of the same trawler off the south-east coast. Neither submarine carried any identification. I asked permission to raise this issue here in the light of what happened last summer to the Sharalga when a trawler was literally pulled to the bottom of the sea, in the Irish Sea, and when the crew were extremely lucky to escape with their lives. It was later admitted that a British submarine had been responsible for that accident. Obviously it must be a source of worry to the Kilmore fishermen, to fishermen all around our coastline, that their lives and property are at risk while these unwanted dangers lurk in our waters. What action have the Government taken over the Kilmore incident? If, as I suspect, they have done nothing, then our fishermen will know clearly that this Government just are not interested. I want the Minister of State to give me a detailed account of the Kilmore incident and activity, if any, his Government have engaged in on account of it.
Celtic Sea herring fishing has been a bone of contention for some years now. Last year, following good work and strong negotiation on the part of the former Minister for Fisheries, he succeeded in persuading the EEC Fisheries Ministers that the Celtic Sea could withstand heavier fishing by Irish boats. I am saddened to learn now that the quota for herring in the Irish Sea has been allowed to lessen by the present Government in respect of Irish fishermen. I am posing the question directly again: are we more interested in obliging foreign fishermen than our own? Small inshore fishermen are experiencing dreadful treatment at present from many points of view. One is that they are owed £30,000, due in intervention of these fishermen of the Duncannon and Passage areas. I am sure much more is due in respect of other areas around our coasts. These people had to dump fish last year.
We heard of many incidences of such dumping around our coasts. What are the Minister's intentions to ensure that this does not recur in the next herring season? Is it his intention to set up a fish processing unit in the Duncannon region to ensure that we shall not have a repetition of the situation that prevailed last year when fishermen had to dump herring at £5 a box, when ten years earlier the same box of herring would have fetched £10? The herring fishing industry in some areas is now non-viable. Many skippers are finding it difficult to make repayments. We have heard instances of this throughout the debate in respect of fishermen right around our coastline. I say to the Minister of State present that Duncannon pier now warrants immediate attention. There are massive stones at the tip of the pier and if they were removed there would be berthage for two boats. This has been promised year after year but nothing has been done. Now that we have a local man on the scene I ask him to upgrade the pier at Duncannon. The plans have been put forward to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Has the Minister asked them to put forward this project as a priority? I was very disappointed that Wexford was not mentioned once in the contribution of the Minister last night.
The salmon season has been shortened in recent times from 15 March to the end of June. Originally it was from 12 February to 15 August. The licence fee has been increased to £115 but very few fish have been caught in the south-east in recent years. It has been claimed by fishermen in the south-east that this is because of illegal salmon fishing off the west coast. Salmon return to their river of origin for spawning and if they are caught off the west coast on their journey to rivers in the south and south-east quite obviously they will never reach the sunny south-east. I should like to comment on these matters. I ask him to consider lengthening the season in the south-east to 15 August to give parity to the fishermen.
I hope the Minister will encourage the promotion of mussel fisheries. There is a very successful mussel fishery in Wexford harbour where 4,000 tonnes are harvested each year. Demand for the product of this export industry far outstrips the supply. I am told that at present the demand exceeds 10,000 tonnes. Since this is an export industry I am sure the Minister will provide finance to improve the situation. The fishery could grow this year to 6,000 tonnes and it could create 20 new jobs at a cost of £20,000. Surely this low cost job-creating enterprise will succeed in attracting finance? Money is necessary to locate mussel seed beds out of the sea that, because of the predators, would not survive in that environment.
I understand the Deputy has exceeded considerably the suggested time. It is only a suggested allocation of time.
The mussel seeds must be transplanted in the safety of Wexford harbour and I appeal to the Minister to support this commonsense enterprise.
Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire agus leis an Aire Stáit as an fhreagracht atá orthu. Sílim go bhfuil siad i bhfeighil Roinn an-tábhachtach chomh fada agus a bhaineann sé le cúrsaí eacnamaíochta agus tá súil agam i gceann ceithre bliana nó cúig bliana go mbeidh dul chun chinn mór déanta. Chomh maith leis sin ba mhaith liom chomhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an dá urlabhraí ar an dtaobh thall den Teach agus mo chomhleacaí féin as Tír Chonaill. Ta súil agam go n-éireoidh go maith leo sin fosta.
Last year I had an opportunity of contributing fairly extensively in debates on the fishing industry. I regretted then that I did not have an opportunity of contributing in another very important area, namely, forestry. There is great potential in this sector particularly in the west of Ireland and in Donegal but it has been ignored by successive Governments during the years. Statistics today show that only 4 per cent of our total land area is under forestry — the lowest in Europe with the exception of Iceland and we all know what difficulties they have.
However, this has not always been the case. It is estimated that in 1600 12½ per cent of our total land area was under forests. That was run down and when our native Government took over in 1922 only 130,000 acres were under forest. One of the first policies to be adopted by the native Government was to press ahead with a positive policy of afforestation. In 1923 — and we all know how difficult that year was — 1,000 acres was planted. In 1929 approximately 3,500 acres was planted and that increased in 1937 to between 7,000 and 8,000 acres. The next positive step was taken in 1948 under the programme for recovery when the Government of the day adopted a policy that we would plant 10,000 hectares per annum. That policy was endorsed in the First Programme for Economic Expansion in 1958. Had we adhered to that policy of planting 10,000 hectares per annum, today there would be 500,000 hectares under forest, but we have fallen far short of that target. As the Minister said last night, the amount of land under forest is well below 400,000 hectares. That shows the neglect of forestry in the past 50 or 60 years. I am not blaming the present Minister or the Minister of State. The blame must be attached to every Government in the past 50 or 60 years. There is not a parish in the country without half a dozen town-lands that derive their name from a forest, a wood or a grove. Even in my area of Gweedore where there are very few trees, there are half a dozen "doires" which takes its name from the word "grove".
I should like to make a few suggestions to the Minister of State as I understand he is interested in forestry. I ask him to adopt a positive policy of land acquisition. If we do not acquire land, how can we plant it? There is much unproductive land available in the west and I appeal to the Minister to have a positive approach towards the acquisition of land. There has been a steady decrease in land acquisition and planting since 1977. I understand in that year about 7,000 or 8,000 hectares were planted but in 1981 that had decreased to about 5,500. There is plenty of land available if a fair price is given to the people who own it. The Minister should make arrangements to ensure that people become more aware of the benefits of afforestation. For instance, there is a scheme in force at the moment called the Shelter Belt Scheme. In my area the demand for that scheme far outstrips the supply of seedlings available. In my area it is usually announced in church on Sundays that the forms are available. There is a rush to the sacristy afterwards but people often find that no forms are left. Even when people apply, more often than not word comes back that no seedlings are available. The interest is there and we should make a effort to supply people who are interested in planting.
Secondly, the Department should use the schools and make the children more aware of the advantages of trees. Schools every year have a sports day and I cannot see why we should not have a national arbour day when the teachers, the children and other institutions would go out and plant a tree and have a few lessons on the benefit of trees and so on. Not alone would it create jobs but from the tourist point of view it would be an advantage also. There is nothing as pleasant on a summer evening, or indeed on a winter afternoon, than to go out for a walk in a forest. I understand that something is being done about this at the moment, but I appeal to the Minister to open up more forests and have nature trails and walks.
In conclusion, before going on to Fisheries, I would like to say that in my county, where unemployment is so high, we have 21 forest units and in 1981 a quantity of 50,000 cubic metres of timber was exported from County Donegal into Northern Ireland, Sweden and other countries from which it was probably bought back later. Here is an opportunity for establishing an industry in some part of the county, perhaps in the Finn Valley, Ballybofey and the Stranorlar area where the unemployment rate is high. Keep this timber at home, process it at home, create employment and save the money that we must pay when importing it again.
As I said at the beginning, I had an opportunity of speaking at some length on fisheries last year. We all realise, as I believe was said last night and again this morning, that the industry is in a very bad state at the moment. We all know what the reasons are. The fishermen and the fleets have difficulties with their repayments because their overhead costs are escalating by the year and even by the month. We have probably the highest fuel cost in Europe. The cost of labour is escalating as is the cost of gear, insurance and so on. At the other end of the scale the prices that fishermen are paid for their catches are more or less static and very often fail to keep up with inflation. I do not know what can be done about this. Perhaps fuel subsidies could be considered, although I understand that that is against the spirit of the Treaty of Rome. Nevertheless, I believe some European countries adopt such measures. If I am not mistaken, the French do it and the Italians at the moment have some scheme whereby they subsidise the Sicilian fleet. Perhaps the Minister could give some thought to this. I appreciate that in the budget subsidy for fishermen's fuel has been maintained but perhaps it could be increased in view of the difficulties they are experiencing at the moment.
Much more employment could be created in the fishing industry. As Deputy Sheehan said, for every person we have fishing at sea we have one employed in the processing industry on the mainland. A comparison of that with what is going on in some European countries where the ratio is one to six gives an indication of what can be done especially in the west of Ireland where so many people are engaged in the fishing industry and where the unemployment rate is much higher than in many other parts of the country. I ask the Minister and the Minister of State to consider during their four or five years in office the setting up of small processing plants along the western seaboard. We do not want giants employing 500 or 600. Small plants scattered right along the coast from Donegal to Cork and Kerry and around the south-east employing 20 or 30 people would be of great benefit to those areas which are depending so much on the fishing industry at the moment.
The Deputy has been speaking for about ten minutes.
I have tried to deal with things on a national basis. There are a few things I would like to say about Donegal where we have the major fishing port of this country and it is an utter disgrace that the town of Killybegs, that major fishing port, has not yet got the services of an automatic telephone exchange. The people there are still depending on the manual exchange and the House knows how important an element time is when you are dealing with fish. The buyers and processors there very often must leave that town and go to some other part of the county or into Northern Ireland to make contact with their buyers and others abroad. I ask the Minister to make representations such as I have made consistently in this last year to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to make Killybegs automatic as soon as possible.
A Cheann Comhairle, I thank you for being so lenient with your time. Agus arís guím rath ar an Aire agus ar an Aire Stáit san obair atá rompu.
Deputy Hyland has ten minutes.
I regret the time limit on this debate because it prevents any of us from making any kind of worthwhile contribution such as I am sure every Deputy who speaks here would wish to make. The forestry industry has not in the past got the recognition it deserves. It has been treated more or less as the Cinderella of economic development as is evident in the course of this debate, which has gone on for many hours. With the exception of the previous speaker who spoke on forestry for about five minutes and my contribution which will be about ten minutes, the matter was not referred to. This reflects the manner in which the timber industry in general has been treated. On too many occasions it has fallen the victim of a lack of political commitment to its development. This erratic approach resulting in a lack of continuity in policy has affected all aspects of economic development in this country but particularly the development of the forestry industry.
The timber industry, from the initial stages of ground preparation and planting to the various stages of harvesting and processing with the value-added content of all of those stages, should be a major source of profitable economic activity providing valuable employment and reducing the very high and unnecessary import of timber and timber products. Also, the industry is the victim of isolated planning. Just as you cannot isolate agricultural development from all of its subsidiary industries, neither can you isolate the forestry industry from what should be its subsidiary industries. I am referring mainly to the construction industry. We should not allow short-term economic difficulties to deter us from investing in forestry just because the return is slow. We have been the victims of this attitude in the past, but with our knowledge and insight we should not deprive future generations of the benefit of a well-planned forestry industry for which, in fairness to the Department, the foundation has already effectively been laid. We must identify all land which is unsuitable for agricultural development. The State must become more actively involved in the acquisition of this land, paying realistic prices to its owners, and in cases where the owner wishes to develop it himself, making grants and giving advice and, if necessary, subsidised loans available for private forestry development.
Even at the initial stage of development many more productive jobs could be created in our nurseries in the propagation of trees and in the planting and maintenance of young forest. Foresters say that lack of care and attention at the initial stage of development seriously retard early growth and the maturity of our forests. Much progress was made in the area of planting between 1940 and 1950 and we are now in a position to commence reaping the benefit of that investment. The output of forests is expected to increase from 840,000 cubic metres in 1978 to over 1.6 million by 1993. This is a very significant growth and presents us with a real opportunity of capitalising on the State investment of 30 or 40 years ago.
The processing industry will be very important in the years ahead. It is essential for the purpose of creating jobs and reducing the unacceptable level of timber imports, especially in the construction industry. The saw milling industry has made significant progress under difficult conditions in terms of output and quality of products. There is, however, still considerable scope for increasing the value added content of the industry and this is vital at this stage in the national interest. The saw milling and processing industries are the hub of the value added process and it is the duty of the Government, and especially the Department, to create the economic climate in which it can operate and expand, The industry is extremely competitive and is subjected to unfair competition from Northern Ireland where the industry enjoys great State support and a more favourable exchange rate. The Minister should co-operate more fully with the industry in relation to the sale of timber from State forests. Transport costs are now a major factor and it should be possible to ensure that unnecessary transport of timber is avoided in relation to the purchasing of this timber by national processors.
I realise the Department have made a significant contribution to the establishment of the industry. Forestry workers down through the years have had a remarkable interest in and commitment to its development. With the increasing volume of timber coming on stream, the time has come to take a more critical look at the Department's entire operation in this field. Consideration and thought should be given to the establishment of a national agency with full responsibility for developing all aspects of the industry so as to maximise its value to the nation. I do not wish to condemn the system operating at present but I want to ensure that we capitalise and expand on the sound base which has already been established. I have the height of respect for the civil service but I do not believe this programme can be carried out under their aegis. It would be more effectively carried out by an independant authority. If we are to maximise our income from State investment in forestry, we must increase the capacity of our plants, either by the provision of a national plant or, perhaps more preferably, by providing grants and subsidies to existing operators to increase the capacity of their plants. This step is necessary if we are to reduce our present import bill amounting to approximately £200 million in 1982. With good organisation and marketing, it should be possible to increase employment in the industry from the 4,000 employed at present to approximately 15,000 in the years ahead. Recognising the national advantage of reducing timber imports, we cannot afford to neglect the obvious economic gain which exists at present and, more importantly, its potential for development in the future.
I urge the Minister and the Department to give greater attention to the need and the importance of research into forestry. He should consider expanding the training school in Offaly. I very much regret the difficulties which young foresters are experiencing at present in securing employment. Last year 12 trainee foresters who graduated from the forestry school in Kinnitty were unable to find suitable employment within the industry. That is a regrettable situation which we should try to redress. I was very pleased to note that the Department will give greater consideration in the future to amenity development. That is the road ahead. In the Slieve Bloom area progress has been made and I am very grateful for it.
I do not know if I am the only Deputy from the Dublin area to speak on this Estimate but I want to make different points to those of other Deputies who obviously had a different attitude because of the relevance of the Estimate to their own constituencies. A very worth-while exercise could be carried out in educating school children on the importance of forestry. As a member of a local authority, I am aware that there is a programme in the Dublin Corporation area of tree planting in the grounds of schools to help children to identify different forms of trees and to respect tree life. Deputy Hyland referred to amenity areas but I believe that trees in a main street are an amenity and can be a great environmental asset. Children are being taught to respect and to understand the need for proper forestation. I hope the Minister's remit will extend beyond forests. I cannot understand why the Minister, as part of the educational process, does not take on direct responsibility for a programme to encourage people to extend respect for trees. Most trees planted in Dublin in the seventies were vandalised as soon as they were put up, but because of the programme of education trees have been flourishing even in the hardest areas of Dublin. It is fantastic to see this because in other cities, especially Berlin, they take an interest in tree planting in the centre of the city and ensure that the population will have an understanding of the beauty of trees and of the importance of trees to the economy. The amenities in the Dublin mountains are very welcome but could the Minister not consider a programme for an Unter den Linden in Dublin? It would be a very good environmental and public relations exercise. In my constituency we have the Rivers Camac, Poddle, Liffey, Dodder and the Grand Canal.
I am very pleased that a coarse fish stocking programme is being undertaken in relation to the Grand Canal. That canal divides the outer and inner city areas of my constituency. This is an area of very high unemployment and many young people who cannot afford summer holidays spend their time fishing from the banks of the canal and catching the odd pike or perch. I have been pursuing this matter of stocking of the canal for some time and am happy that my representations are coming to fruition.
I ask the Minister to undertake an examination of all the Dublin rivers. The river Camac is a trout river in County Dublin but in the city area it is so polluted that fish would not survive in it. I understand, however, that it will soon be suitable for coarse fishing. I ask the Minister to ensure that fish life in these rivers from an amenity and a public relations point of view are protected, so that the young people who may be open to encouragement towards vandalism will, instead, take an interest in forestry and fishery matters and spend their time using these amenities. This would not cost a lot of money. I ask the Minister not to leave these things to the Department of the Environment. His Department could do much good for itself in taking the leading role here.
Mr. Coughlan
A Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom ar dtús mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leat féin, leis an Taoiseach, le ceannairí Fhianna Fáil agus leis na Teachtaí go léir atá anseo i ngeall ar an fáilte a chuir sibh romham agus an cuidiú a fuair mé nuair a tháinig mé anseo.
I know that this is a very serious national issue. However, by way of example, I refer to the problems of Killybegs which are similar to those of other fishing ports right around our coasts from Donegal, without leaving any port out until one gets back to Dundalk. The problems are many, but I want to highlight a few. First, there is great concern in Killybegs over the proposed reduction in the mackerel quota. I understand that the current figure of around 80,000 tonnes is being reduced to 55,000 tonnes. The Killybegs fishermen believe that this reduction may be disastrous for them. They claim that the quotas should be increased to approximately 150,000 tonnes. I qualify that by saying that the Killybegs fishermen have invested heavily in new boats and very expensive equipment. The larger trawlers are costing them per week something in the region of £4,000 to £5,000. The initial price of the trawlers is somewhere between £2½ million to £3 million. Unless these quotas are maintained or increased, the repayments — which are as high as £½ million per year — will not be supportable and the fishermen and all involved in that industry will be in trouble.
The second problem facing the fishermen relates to the larger boats by comparison with the smaller. The larger trawlers around Killybegs are capable of landing 60,000 tonnes in any given year. Had the quotas been left as they were, that would leave only 20,000 for the smaller trawlers, and here I am speaking about those from 50 foot to 75 foot. In that case somebody has to suffer.
My next point is the concern of the fishermen about the apparent lack of control of foreign boats. I know that we have fishery patrol vessels, but it is a widely held view that many of these foreign boats exceed their quotas. The only figures available to the public in general and to our fishermen are those given by the countries involved, in other words they are not monitored while fishing in Irish waters. The vessels from 75 foot to 80 foot depend largely on white fish. They are affected by the high costs of fuel and of operating which for them are in the region of £1,500 to £2,000 a week. This does not take into account the cost of repayment to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. It must also be appreciated that the smaller boats do not have the earning potential of the larger ones. The fishermen say that the price of white fish in Donegal is relatively good at the moment, but that some steps should be taken to increase the quantity of fish landed. They, and everybody else concerned, would like to know if anything is being done to develop the white fish industry.
Our main mackerel markets are Nigeria and Egypt. The processers in Killybegs are concerned at the present delay of up to 11 months between the time of dispatching the processed food and at receipt of payment. They cannot operate in such a fashion. They ask the Government to guarantee them credit facilities and say that unless this is done they will be unable to buy fish which, in turn, will bring about a severe curtailment of employment in the industry. It has already been mentioned that Egypt are accepting and paying for fish at the point of entry. This is not acceptable to the fishing industry, for very obvious reasons. The fishermen ask if the Minister could negotiate a more favourable agreement with the Egyptians.
If the problems relating to these two countries are not over come, it will have a devastating effect on the employment situation in Killybegs. There, between October and March, at least 1,000 people are employed directly in the fishing industry. The Minister has mentioned that Killybegs is being developed and that dredging is completed. However, there are other problems in our fishing ports which have yet to be dealt with. We are all aware that no fishing industry can survive or thrive without proper landing and off-shore facilities.
The fishermen of Burtonport are adversely affected, firstly because the larger trawlers cannot enter the harbour and secondly, because although they were promised an extension of the pier and dredging of the harbour, neither of these has been done to date. If Burtonport is not developed the fishermen of that area believe that the port will decline because the engineering and other service industries associated with fishing will concentrate on Killybegs.
Another question was, if the Minister would clarify if all port development has been stopped. There was some development of smaller ports such as Inver and Greencastle. People wonder if the developments which were promised have been shelved for the time being. When speaking to fishermen I found they could not understand why foreign boatyards can produce boats much cheaper than we can here. They feel that something should be done about this.
What has the Department in relation to the Common Fisheries Policy for this year? What is their policy towards fisheries for the future? Fishermen believe there should be more consultation between them and the Government before decisions are taken at Government level. They find that decisions are made for them rather than with them. Further research should be carried out in relation to diversification from overdependence on herring and mackerel. There is need for a move towards white fish and non-traditional species such as horse-mackerel, ling, dog-fish and sprat. These should be processed. By doing so more work will be made available.
My next point is on behalf of inshore fishermen. They operate with half-deckers and sometimes smaller boats. They claim that there is a great increase in the number of seals evident along the coast. They want to know if anything will be done about this. We can conserve seals but we also need to conserve salmon. They do not consider the season which starts in March and ends in July as suitable. I am sure the same applies to fishermen around the coast. They want to know how the Government would feel about a suggestion that fishing should start in May and end in August.
It is important from the fisherman's point of view to keep operation costs to a minimum. Fuel accounts for about 70 per cent of a fisherman's total costs. The Minister should look seriously at the possibility of making a special arrangement with the fuel suppliers. Oil prices are falling but there is no evidence that the benefit is being passed on to the fishing industry. The most important issue as far as fishermen are concerned is the price they are paid for the fish they land. Guaranteed minimum prices would be the answer.
Would the Minister be gracious enough to give me——
I will have to allow the Minister extra time.
I rise to make a plea to the Minister on behalf of the Mornington mussel fishermen. County Meath has a very small coastline of about five miles. I often envy counties with large coastlines. We have a problem in County Meath which is caused by sewage in Drogheda. The Mornington mussel has a very proud tradition in the UK and on the continent. There are about 50 families involved in the small fishing village of Mornington. The sewage problem emanates from Drogheda. Drogheda Corporation are seeking to put in an intersector plant to arrest the sewage problem which is affecting the mussels. The Department are fully aware of the problem as are the North Eastern Health Board and the Eastern Health Board. I appeal to the Minister to use his influence to have the problem in Mornington arrested.
We have a gentleman's agreement to conclude.
I just wish to remind the Minister——
The Minister will have to be given extra time.
——that I raised the question of the development of Clogherhead Harbour in April last and the Minister told me that the hydraulic model investigation had been completed. I should like to know when work on Clogherhead Pier will begin.
In view of the comments which have been made by various Deputies in relation to harbour development, would the Minister consider restoring the £1 million?
The Minister to conclude.
I congratulate Deputy Coughlan on his maiden speech and wish him well. I had nothing to do with changing the time of the debate. That was an agreement made between the Whips. I thank the various Deputies who contributed to the debate on the Estimate, particularly for their good wishes to the Minister and myself. In the time available to me I can only deal with the major points raised. I have asked my officials to take a note of the smaller points which were made and each Deputy will be communicated with.
The question Deputy Fitzsimons raised is a medical one and I cannot interfere.
Could the Department not put on some pressure for EEC grants?
We cannot have question and answer.
A number of Deputies spoke about the need for a planned development programme following completion of the negotiations on the common fisheries policy. While I fully agree with the concept I wish to dispel the idea that no plan exists as far as the fishing industry is concerned. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Any plan contains a number of elements. In the case of the fishing industry these can be broken down into four categories — catching, marketing, education and training, harbour development and research. Considerable progress has been made under these headings. The efficiency of the existing programme is being actively reviewed in the light of the common fisheries policy. The central advisory committee which functions under the auspices of the Department of the Taoiseach has set up a fisheries advisory committee. The committee comprise representatives of the various fishing interests as well as outside experts. I look forward to receiving from them shortly a report which should be of tremendous assistance in the preparation of a cohesive plan for the future development of the industry.
A number of Deputies spoke of the concern on the part of a large body of fishermen who have fallen into arrears with their repayments. I wish it to be known that BIM have been asked to consider each of these cases on its merits. I am satisfied that this is being done. The board have set up a rescue unit and talks have taken place with a number of fishermen who have been assisted by way of the restructuring of their accounts, by the provision of additional grants and loan facilities for the repair and restructuring of their vessels and by way of technical advice. Examination of the remaining cases that are seriously in arrears is proceeding as staffing circumstances permit. I am very familiar personally with the borrowing problems as a result of the difficulties being faced by farmers in Wexford in this respect. Therefore, I appreciate the extent of the problem. Any skipper who makes a genuine effort to meet his commitments will be dealt with sympathetically. If any Deputy on either side of the House is of the opinion that any boat owner or skipper is being badly treated in this respect, he should contact me personally when I would be prepared to deal with the case. I have acted in this way with members of the IFO and I will continue to do so on the basis of representations from Deputies on either side of the House. I am offering that facility because I consider it to be necessary at this stage.
I do not share Deputy Begley's view in relation either to my Department or to BIM. During my short term in office so far as Minister of State with responsibility for Fisheries and Forestry I have found an exceptionally sound administration both in the Department and in BIM backed up by very competent staffs. I look forward to a fruitful term of office in both these Departments. There is no basis for Deputy Begley's criticism.
One of the main items referred to has been the EEC negotiations, about the outcome of which concern has been expressed in the context of total allowable catches and quotas for 1983. I assure the House that the strongest possible resistance will be mounted by the Minister and by myself to any arrangement that would involve a reduction for this country in terms of total allowable catches. I appreciate that each country will fight its own case. We are now down to a situation in which there is a total allowable catch for the entire Community so that everyone will be doing his best so far as the catch is concerned. I am giving the undertaking that we will fight tooth and nail to maintain our level of the catch.
One of the major issues raised here has been the question of Spanish vessels and about their operation in our waters. I should like to clarify the situation. There are involved three different categories of vessel. First, there are Spanish vessels that were registered in Spain and which on the basis of holding an EEC licence can fish in our waters at a point up to the 50-mile limit but which if they do not hold such a licence can fish only outside the 200-mile limit. The restriction is being policed by the Naval Service whom I should like to compliment on their swift action in the past fortnight particularly.
Secondly, there are vessels that were formerly Spanish but which have registered in Britain thereby securing the same rights as the British in relation to fishing in our waters. Legislation to deal with this problem will be introduced in the House shortly and I am confident that it will be enacted before we adjourn for the Summer Recess. I wish to emphasise that there has been no delay on the legislation so far as the Department are concerned but most people will be prepared to accept that the Bill is complex and difficult. Thirdly, there are former Spanish vessels which have registered as Irish vessels and which in some cases are owned in part by Irish citizens. These vessels are operating in the Castletownbere area. I spent a day there to find out first-hand what the position is. I am not pleased with the operation but it, too, is a matter that will be dealt with in the legislation.
I assure the House that the Department will not allow any erosion of our position so far as the Spanish fishermen are concerned. It would be fatal for our fishermen to do so. While there is pressure from all sides for certain developments relating to Spanish interests, that pressure will be resisted.
Another question raised is that of harbour development. As the House will be aware, we have five major harbours. These harbours have been given priority in terms of development. While I do not intend to criticise the people who made the decision in that regard, there should have been a certain allocation to the smaller harbours. The small harbours have suffered as a result of the huge investment in the five major harbours which include Killybegs. Unfortunately, the smaller harbours are now in a very bad state of repair. I have been considering the 1983-84 Estimate and in that context, I will be ensuring that the smaller harbours receive some allocation. I am glad to inform Deputy Byrne that Wexford County Council at their meeting next Monday may expect an announcement that £60,000 has been allocated for the repair of the breach at Kilmore Harbour and also that money owed to Wexford County Council for development at Courtown has been agreed. In this respect a sum of £21,000 will be paid over to the county council.
Deputy Byrne said that the Minister did not refer in any way to the Wexford constituency. In introducing an Estimate, it is not for the Minister to mention an individual constituency.
He mentioned his own constituency.
In addition, I have asked for an assessment, not only of the small harbours in Wexford but of those throughout the country. We must make up our minds as to the condition they are in and moneys will have to be allocated to them in the 1983-84 Estimate.
Perhaps the £1 million that was put off will be restored.
We will not go into that. In the past ten years very little attention has been paid to the small harbours. That was wrong policy and one that I do not intend following.
While on the question of harbour development, would the Minister answer the specific question I raised about Burtonport?
I am asking the officials to let the Deputy have a comprehensive answer in that regard. I am asking them to do likewise in respect of questions raised by other Deputies concerning specific harbours, because I do not have sufficient time here to go into detail in respect of each one.
Perhaps the Chair would let me know how much time remains to me.
The Chair has discretion but within reason I think that the Minister should have as long as it takes him to reply. He is entitled to another five minutes in any case.
I did not notice a great deal of interest in afforestation during this debate. That is regrettable. It is an area in which I am very interested and one that has tremendous potential for our economy. I am hopeful of being able to make a special announcement in the very near future about land acquisition for afforestation purposes. A huge area of land which could be growing timber is lying idle and it is my duty to encourage the owners of that land either to plant it or allow the Department to acquire it. Huge tracts of land are at present carrying one livestock unit to six or seven acres and this is waste of a natural resource. It is my intention to introduce completely new policies in this regard.
Deputy Daly mentioned the large amount of timber imports. It is true that imports are far too high but I can assure the House that the Department are doing all in their power to bring about an increasing use of home-grown timber. In this they have the active support and assistance of bodies such as the Department of the Environment, the IDA and the IIRS. Import substitution is a primary objective but it must be realised that the process will be gradual because of the age structure of our forests, some two-thirds of which have not yet reached the stage of producing saw log timber. The report on the timber industry to which Deputy Daly referred has already been published by the IDA and is entitled "Development of Timber Industry for the Eighties".
What about the departmental survey which has not yet been published?
I understand it will be published in the very near future. Regarding the marketing of fish, I am setting up an advisory board comprised of representative of all interested parties, processors, exporters and fishermen. There are serious problems in the area of marketing which must be dealt with quickly and we will also deal with processing. We are now moving towards the herring and mackerel season and we must prevent dumping.
Will there be any relationship with BIM or will there be a removal of powers from them?
I am not removing any powers from BIM. The board will be set up in co-operation with BIM and the headquarters will be in the BIM offices. I will be acting as chairman of the board because I believe they must have political support. BIM will also have representatives on this board. The dumping of fish must be avoided at all costs.
Fishery and forestry are valuable natural resources and it is my intention to develop both these areas. My main effort is to consolidate the fleet. There is a serious problem in this regard which has not arisen overnight. Marketing is the next problem and it is a matter which has been neglected in all sectors.
Regarding forestry, the important matter is the acquisition of land. We are down to about 16,000 acres per annum and the land bank is about 22,000 acres, less than a year's planting. I hope to make announcements concerning these matters within the next month. I thank everybody who took part in the debate and look forward to a more lengthy discussion in the coming months.
Vote put and agreed to.