asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the total value of fish imported in 1983 and 1984; the proposals his Department have for the improvement of the marketing of fish within the country; if he will agree that there is far greater scope for marketing of fish in Britain; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fish Marketing.
15.
The total value of fish imported in 1983 was £27.1 million and £24.5 million for the first 11 months of 1984. The bulk of these imports consists of prepared or preserved fish.
The promotion of the marketing of fish on both the home and export markets is dealt with by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in association with the fish trade. The board have recently reviewed their markets promotion strategy with a view to expanding exports of fish and fish products and to increasing home consumption. In order to enable the board to carry out this development programme an additional £350,000 has been allocated to them by the Government for the current year.
Exports of fish to Britain were valued at £14.3 million in 1984. Good outlets exist there for white fish and shellfish which are surplus to Irish home market requirements although the home market provides a higher return to fishermen. Landings of pelagic fish account for the vast bulk of all Irish fish landings and these fish are exported mainly to markets in Africa and mainland Europe where market outlets are better than in the UK.
Will the Minister accept that not sufficient finance is made available to BIM, the marketing body, to find markets throughout Europe and all parts of the world? Would he accept that it is not sufficient for an industry such as the fishing industry to have one office based in Paris for all of Europe? Would he give serious consideration to co-ordinating with the personnel in CTT offices throughout the world? We have numerous CTT offices and this would be an opportunity to marry in with the various other offices. There is tremendous potential throughout the world. Despite the fact that we have sufficient fish around our coast to supply these markets, now Europe is telling us that we cannot fish them. I hope that the Minister will use his power of veto there and ensure that we can increase the quotas. It is sad that we have the fish, we can sell them, but Europe will not allow us to fish them.
The Deputy will be delighted to hear that I have already taken steps to co-ordinate the marketing effort with CTT. Secondly, under the national plan an additional £480,000 is being made available for fish market development and exploratory fishing in 1985. This brings the total expenditure on promotional work to £685,000, the highest in the history of BIM.
Dealing with the home market, could the Minister tell the House if a grant which was payable to the ICOS for an officer of the ICOS to organise and help co-operatives in organising marketing and matters of that kind is still being paid and if any assessment has been made in relation to the promotional work done by that gentleman regarding the fishing industry? He is a well known public figure. Perhaps the Minister would indicate how many co-operatives he has helped to organise and what help he has given to the industry since this grant was made available.
I have not got the information in relation to what the Deputy is asking vis-à-vis this officer. The development of the home market area will absorb £260,000 of that £685,000. We have set specific targets in relation to increasing consumption at home. They represent an increase of 0.4 pounds per capita per year for the next four years. The current level of consumption is 12.8 pounds per capita and we have plans to increase that to 13.2 pounds per capita, which is quite low. So it is a conservative target, but traditionally our fish consumption level has been low. There are a variety of reasons for that but I shall not go into those now. Irish people consume about one-quarter or one-fifth of the amount that would be consumed by the Japanese, for instance, and about one-third of what would be consumed by the Spanish.
Is the grant still being paid through the ICOS to the person concerned? Is there any record of the work he has been doing apart from the figure the Minister has given, a figure I do not consider in any way impressive?
To paraphrase, the reference to the horse, one can bring people to fish but one cannot make them eat the fish. I do not have the information requested by the Deputy in relation to ICOS but I will communicate with him when the details are available to me.
I understood the Minister to say that in the past year we have imported fish to the value of £27 million, mainly of the processed variety. As an island nation we should be well able to provide the product ourselves. In view of the unemployment situation, would the Minister consider making a detailed list of the fish imported with a view to interesting co-operatives and other companies in the manufacturing and processing areas to substituting those imports? Is it not disappointing that we import so much fish and fish products? Surely this is an ideal area for the creation of employment.
I agree that there is potential in that area but the figure may be somewhat misleading in that parts of it would refer to landings from Irish registered boats at places such as Derry in the North. Such landings are transported by road to Killybegs and other processing plants in Donegal, but it is included for the purpose of arriving at figures for imports. They are landings by Irish trawlers which are used in this country as raw material for Irish processors.
Would those landings constitute a major part of the figure given?
They would account for possibly 20 per cent of the total figure, but we are still talking about a fairly substantial sum, which includes figures for salmon, white fish and other species such as prawns and shrimps. We are exporting somewhat different species. For example, the prawns we export are bigger and more expensive in the world market. That kind of deal is a net profit for us. We are using the less popular ones, which are imported. Likewise, we are exporting salmon, but we are importing tinned salmon because we do not have canning facilities here. I agree that there is potential. However, in case anyone should get the idea that we should be processing every pound of fish we land, that would not be a feasible proposition simply because we have fresh fish and whole fish markets which we should supply also. There is room for expansion. At present I am dealing with various inquiries from potential investors in this area.
Is there an import substitution programme or task force in the fishing industry similar to the one in operation in manufacturing industry and in the other industries generally?
There is not a specific import substitution programme but there is a very keen awareness of this matter. The private sector, who are the people who invest in these kinds of projects, are aware of the niches in the marketplace and they are the people to whom I am talking and encouraging in conjunction with Udarás na Gaeltachta and the IDA who are involved also in non-Gaeltacht areas in giving the normal kind of grants for this sort of opertion.
I am calling Question No. 16.
In view of——
I have waited patiently during the last supplementaries. We must move on to the next question.
—— the Minister having mislead the House by saying that there is no canning factory here, I would like to remind him that both mackerel and herring are canned here. As a former Minister for Fisheries, you should have known that, too.
I have been accused of misleading the House.
Deputy Gallagher is being disorderly. He has been impertinent to the Chair.
I am prepared to stand over what I said.
If the Deputy wishes to reduce the standard of the House to that level, he is welcome to do so; but he should be ashamed of himself.
I was referring to there being no salmon canning facility.
I will not be intimidated. The record will show what the Minister said.
The Deputy attacked the Chair ——
If I attacked the Chair, I will not withdraw what I said; but, if I insulted the chair, I withdraw the remark.
The Deputy attacked the Chair in regard to a position held by me in Government some years ago. The Chair considers that entirely out of order and the Deputy should withdraw the remark and apologise.
If the Chair feels that way about it, I withdraw the remark.