Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Jun 1968

Vol. 65 No. 4

Fishery Harbour Centres Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

The Government's intention to develop the major fishery harbour centres provided for in this Bill was originally set out in the Programme for Economic Expansion and details of the development plans were published later in various announcements about the programme of sea fisheries development.

The purpose of this Bill is to make statutory provision for the establishment and development of five major fishery harbour centres at Dunmore East, Castletownbere, Killybegs, Galway, and Howth and also to provide powers for the acquisition, by agreement or compulsorily, of lands required for these centres.

The provision of the major fishery harbour centres arises from the need to concentrate our main fishery activities at specially developed modern fishery harbours having adequate berthage, flotation and shore facilities for our expanding fishing fleet. The development of these centres is also essential for the national organisation of the fishing industry and the centralisation of activities in regional areas in the processing and marketing fields.

The selection of the five harbour centres mentioned in the Bill was based on a report made by a renowned Swedish harbour consultant, Mr. Carl. G. Bjuke, who carried out an intensive survey of the Irish coastline and its various ports and fish landing places. His report, which was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, was a comprehensive document and provided most useful information and recommendations on plans for fishery harbour development.

Since then, work on the provision of the new harbour centres at Dunmore East, Castletownbere and Killybegs has been in progress at a cost of over £½ million, involving preparatory work, dredging, the re-shaping of harbour areas by reclamation and the provision of new landing and berthing piers. It is estimated that a further £230,000 will be spent at these three centres in the current financial year. Preparatory work has been completed also at the other two centres—Howth and Galway. At Howth extensive dredging is at present in progress and a new design for the Galway major fishery harbour has been adopted to facilitate recent expansion in activity at the nearby commercial harbour centre. The general development of all five centres is designed to be carried out in stages and the work in progress now at Dunmore East, Castletownbere and Killybegs is at stage one. The other stages for which plans are already drafted will be undertaken when there is satisfactory evidence that they are required to meet current or anticipated further growth in the fishing industry.

It was envisaged from the outset that legislation would be required to facilitate the acquisition of land needed for the new harbour works and to set up the machinery for the control and operation of the new harbour centres. The stage has now been reached when it is appropriate to enact the legislation and so this Bill now comes before the House. To facilitate Senators in their consideration of the Bill, I would like to explain in broad terms the various provisions contained in it.

Section 2 of the Bill will empower the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to declare and define the harbour areas which are to be established and developed as fishery harbour centres. Orders made under this section will transfer to the Minister's control each of the five harbours named in the Schedule and constitute in him a new and single harbour authority responsible for their maintenance, operation, management and development. The object of acquiring lands adjoining the harbours is to ensure that adequate space will be made available not only for the building of the harbour but also for essential shore-based activities including, for example, fish processing industries.

It is intended to include in a harbour centre only such area of land as will be absolutely necessary for the development of the centre. The effect of a fishery harbour centre order will be to transfer and vest in the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the harbour and any land which shall be the subject of that order together with any other assets and liabilities of the existing harbour authority. Existing harbour authorities and their officers will cease to carry out any function in relation to the harbours and for the future the Minister will exercise these functions.

The effect of the orders will be to transfer to me Castletownbere Harbour from Cork County Council; Dunmore East and Howth Harbours from the Commissioners of Public Works; and Killybegs Harbour from Killybegs Harbour Commissioners. The latter will then stand dissolved. In the case of Galway, the new fishery harbour centre will be adjacent to the commercial harbour which will continue to be the responsibility of Galway Harbour Commissioners. The provision in this section relating to the prior consent of the Minister for Transport and Power to the making of a fishery harbour centre order refers to Killybegs harbour and also to Galway commercial harbour in so far as the proposed fishery harbour centre at Galway may impinge slightly on the area within the jurisdiction of Galway Harbour Commissioners.

Safeguards are provided in this section for any person who may be affected by a fishery harbour centre order. This is ensured by the requirement that notice must be given of my intention to make the order and consideration must be given to objections raised. If the objections are not withdrawn a public inquiry may be held.

As I have already said, adequate space will be required at fishery harbour centres to provide for essential harbour and shore facilities. The shore facilities include the servicing of fishing vessels, space for the handling and sale of fish, fish processing industries and also facilities for boat repairs and maintenance. Some land has already been acquired for these purposes at the centres by agreement with the owners but due to difficulties about title in some cases and because of failure to reach agreement or unwillingness to sell in others, it is necessary to seek statutory powers for compulsory acquisition.

Provisions to that effect are made in section 3 which relates to the acquisition of land et cetera in fishery harbour centres held other than by harbour authorities. This section is drafted on standard lines and contains the customary provisions. In addition, there is a special provision whereby land, or rights in relation to land or water used in connection with the operation of commercial shipping or the exercise of the public right of navigation, shall not be acquired compulsorily without the consent of the Minister for Transport and Power.

Provisions are made in section 4 of the Bill to give the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the necessary powers to carry out his future functions in the management, control, operation and development of each of the five fishery harbour centres. This section will enable me to make whatever bye-laws are necessary and to make orders fixing rates, tolls and other charges for the use of facilities and services in the harbour centres.

Existing orders, regulations and bye-laws relating to the harbours which are in force at the time of transfer will continue to apply to the harbours in question until they are amended or revoked. In addition to having the responsibility of providing adequate facilities at each centre for the sale of fish landed at the centres, the section will enable the Minister to require that fish landed at the centre be offered for sale at the centre and will also enable him to specify the manner in which sales shall be conducted. Whether it will be necessary to use any or all of these powers will depend on the circumstances obtaining from time to time.

It will be obligatory on the Minister to publish notice whenever he intends to make orders or bye-laws relating to the future management and control of the five harbour centres. He must also state the purposes for which they are to be made. The customary period of 21 days is specified within which interested persons may submit objections to the proposed instruments and consideration must be given to any objections raised. Having considered the objections, the Minister may make the order or bye-law with or without modifications as he may think proper. Notice of the making of the order or bye-law must be published in Iris Oifigiúil. The usual provision is also made for penalties on persons or bodies who contravene orders or bye-laws or who may be involved in such contraventions.

In section 3 provision is made whereby the Minister may with the consent of the Minister for Finance delegate any one or more of his powers relating to the acquisition of land in fishery harbour centres to the Commissioners of Public Works. As it may also be convenient and economical for the Minister to delegate some of his powers and functions relating to the management, control and maintenance of any one or more of the five harbour centres, a similar provision is made in section 4 of the Bill.

To facilitate financial control and accountancy in the provision and operation of the major fishery harbours, the Bill establishes a special fund to be known as the Fishery Harbour Centres Fund. The account of this fund, which will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General each year and laid before each House of the Oireachtas, will indicate the annual income and expenditure related to the fishery harbour centres. All moneys received in respect of rates, tolls and other charges and the non-repayable grants referred to in section 7 will be paid into this fund. Out of the fund will be paid all outlay and expenditure in connection with the operation of the harbours.

The five harbour centres—Dunmore East, Castletownbere, Galway, Killybegs and Howth—are reasonably well distributed around the coast. With the good berthage, shelter and flotation which they will give to our growing fishing fleet together with the first-class shore facilities which they will offer for fish processing and ancillary industries, I am satisfied that they will assist considerably in the expansion and economic development of our sea fishing industry in general.

I recommend the Bill to the House for its approval.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister mentioned that this proposal was referred to in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. It is a matter for concern that it has taken so long to get to the point of doing something about it. We are at the point of preparation for the Third Programme before the first steps of implementing this stage of the Second Programme have even been considered. Everybody on this side of the House shares in the sense of frustration that the potential which this industry has of being exploited during the whole period of the independence of this State has not been achieved in the way everybody had hoped. Our role in the development of the potential of this industry is no credit to us because after 50 years the fishing industry is on a scale so small as to be almost incredible in relation to the riches which lie around our coasts.

Of course, during the past few years some progress has been made and the reorganisation of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara on a much more effective basis has given us the first real prospect of a breakthrough in this respect. The problem now is no longer so much the inadequacy of facilities for reorganising the industry—the resistance of fishermen to change is no longer an obstacle as it had been until recent times. Had money been provided, it might not have been easy to spend it usefully and effectively. This is no longer true and those who are now concerned about the industry feel it could usefully be endowed with more financial resources than it receives.

The capital investment in the fishing industry is very small as a fraction of the total Capital Budget and though this is in line with past arrangements, and though the sums allocated to the industry are greater than in the past, it is now under-financed in relation to the prospects of getting useful returns in relation to the moneys invested. This is an aspect of the Capital Budget to which more concern should be given because there is now the interest in the industry; it is now so much better organised; there are people interested in developing the industry, in being trained for the industry—there is growth, expansion and ability in the industry which had been lacking for a long time. By giving more money for boats and, as in this Bill, for the development of harbours, there is a real prospect of securing very rapid growth in the industry.

It may be that the growth prospects here are greater than in any other sector of our national life and for that reason this Bill is welcome as a useful, if very belated, step in the right direction. The concentration on a number of fishery centres is sensible if we are to establish a fishing industry with potential of a size sufficient to be efficient and effective in our conditions and the shore facilities needed for this purpose. We cannot hope to developevery little harbour around our coasts but we should hope to provide facilities sufficient to handle the scale of activity required if the industry is to be expanded.

I hope that in this development we shall have the co-operation of the fishermen and it is a hopeful sign that there is much more interest in the industry and in expanding it, a much more open mind towards change, than in earlier years. Nevertheless, in recent years we have had the problems at Dunmore East which jeopardised the targets set for the industry in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. Unless we can be guaranteed that these problems can be solved, we cannot expect to achieve the full potential in the industry of which it is capable. I do not think the Minister has been able to overcome the problems that gave rise to these difficulties. He mentions in his opening statement in a very general way proposals for developing these harbours and they seem to be flexible and not at this stage to be very concrete in form as he talks of certain developments taking place as and when the demand for them arises. I think it would be useful at this stage if he could consider publishing some kind of White Paper or statement which would set out in detail the proposals for the development of these harbours and roughly the different stages involved. One would of course recognise that the timing of these different stages of development is something about which he would not want to be too precise at this stage but it would be useful for the fishing industry and for the people of the locality concerned to see in some detail what exactly is proposed for each harbour, what area of land will have to be acquired, what kind of facilities will be established, what the capacity of the port will be at various stages, what the ultimate plans are for the maximum development when this job is finished. I think the fishing industry should know a little more than the rather vague statements in the Minister's opening remarks. I do not fault him for that because if he had gone into great detail some of us individually might not know enough about the different centres to be interested, but from the point of view of the public interest generally and the fishing industry in particular, he could give in some such form as a White Paper details of the proposals for each of these centres.

One thing I am not very happy about in the Bill is the proposal for Ministerial control of these harbours. This runs counter to the general trend in this country for many years past towards transferring executive and administrative functions of this kind from the Government Department and political Ministers to State bodies with the necessary flexibility to undertake this kind of commercial or semi-commercial work. Even at this very moment, I think several of our airports which are currently managed by Government Departments are about to be handed over to a State body which is already managing one of our airports. The proposal here to take away from the existing harbour authorities these harbours and vest them in a Minister runs counter to the whole trend of thinking, I do not mean just the trend of thinking on this side of the House but the trend of thinking on the other side of the House as exemplified by the legislation of many Government Departments in recent years.

I think this is something to which we should give consideration. I would accept that the existing harbour authorities may not be effective bodies for this purpose, that a substantial reorganisation may be needed, that it may be necessary in order to achieve the kind of developments that are needed to have a central fishery harbours authority with local departments then handling each of the individual harbours, but I am not satisfied that the right answer is that this should be handled by a Government Department under a Minister. This is not the way we do things. This is not the way we have been doing things in this country for a long time past. I do not know if any significance is to be attached to the fact that it is once again the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries which is going in the opposite direction to the rest of the country, a practice which it has been engaged in ever since the foundation of the State.

I would hope that the Minister would reconsider this, and that either by further legislation or by exercising his powers of delegation under the Bill, he would establish an appropriate authority to do this work with the necessary flexibility for this purpose and that it would not remain something controlled centrally from a Civil Service Department in Dublin and a Department that has—I was going to say many other fish to fry—but I realise that would be an inappropriate metaphor in this case.

I should like to know what the Minister proposes to do about managing those harbours. There is provision for delegation of authority. Does he propose to establish some kind of committee or board in his Department under his supervision or does he propose that there will be a manager appointed in each harbour with a fair amount of authority to get on with the job, or does he propose simply that this will be a Civil Service department operation without any commercial approach or any modern management approach? We would like to know something about how he proposes to exercise the powers of delegation which he has very properly taken in the Bill, very properly once one faces the original decision that the authority should vest in him.

There is one small point I did not understand in the opening statement. It is the proposal that the permission of the Minister for Transport and Power should be required before certain things are done extends not only to Galway harbour where reasons are given in the Minister's opening statement but also to Killybegs. Is there some technical reason for this or why is it that the Minister for Transport and power is involved in Killybegs as well as Galway where there is a substantial commercial harbour? Is it that there is also a commercial harbour situation in Killybegs that does not exist at Castletownbere, Dunmore East or Howth?

Finally, on the financial arrangements which the Minister referred to, he said that there will be a separate fund established so that the finances will be accounted for separately and one can see what is involved. I would like to ask what kind of accounting there will be. It is the practice in many Government funds to adopt very old-fashioned accountancy techniques in which all the money is paid in one side and all the expenditure lumped in on the other, with no distinction between capital and current. Can we ask whether in this case the fund shall be so accounted for that there will be a balance sheet showing the capital position and then a current profit and a loss account—I suppose it will be a loss rather than a profit account —a current expenditure and income account as well, rather than simply having no balance sheet as is the position in many other cases where Government Departments manage enterprises and capital and current expenditure and income are dumped in together in an account which is virtually meaningless? I should like some assurance as to the form in which the accounts will be dealt with.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not think there is much point at this stage going into the sorry history of neglect of this whole question of our fishing industry, but I think that when Senator Garret FitzGerald states that he is sorry that this industry was not exploited, he is making a very sad mistake in his method of explaining the view because if ever an industry was exploited, this is the particular one. The consumer has been exploited and the producer has been exploited in the person of the fisherman down through the years and the market has been at the disposal of and manipulated by what we can only describe as the princes of the fishing industry, namely, the fish factors and fish auctioneers. It is beyond contradiction that the neglect of this industry by the Government has allowed certain elements in this country to branch into millionaire status at the expense of the fisherman and the public and at the same time, leave the industry itself in a sad and sorry difficulty. What could be the biggest industry in the country, on which a number of other major industrial developments could be based, has been the Cinderella as far as the State is concerned.

It is a fact that 100 years ago there was a flourishing fishing industry in this country. Today in many parts of the coastline remains of the harbours are to be seen and indeed in the West you have actually storage accommodation and the remains of premises where curing took place on a tremendous scale. At that time there was a huge market in America, and indeed in Russia and elsewhere, for fish caught off the west coast of Ireland. I do not know whether there are less fish available today than then. I am not an expert in that field and do not pose as such, but I accept the view put to me that there are quantities of fish available today just as great as there were at the time I have referred to, but that due to the neglect of the industry, other fleets from the four corners of the earth are able to catch the fish off our shores and give a good living to their fishermen and excellent work in their processing plants and much-needed foreign currency to their Governments.

This country has come in for tremendous criticism by European countries who have no access at all to the sea. They cannot understand the mentality of the Irish who boast of being a maritime race, proud of its connections with the sea, while this major industry has been so neglected throughout the years. When at last there is an awakening of interest—and that cannot be denied—it would be a pity if the development of the industry were on wrong lines. Here there is a tremendous opportunity of getting the confidence of the fishing men and the people really interested in the industry itself. I am not too concerned, and I hope that the House would not be too concerned, about the welfare of those who act as auctioneers. They will manage to look after themselves, but if we are really keen on and interested in expanding our fishing industry, we must give some kind of real interest and power to those who do the fishing themselves. If we are serious, the stage is ripe to run the fishing industry on a co-operative basis.

I think that there was never better opportunity to make a start in that direction, rather than to lay down lines that will make it difficult at a later stage when vast vested interests become established. If we decided that the people who do go down to the sea in ships—small ships in the past and now major boats, big fishing fleets— would have a say in the control of the industry, in addition to the consumer, I believe that if the industry is planned on that basis, it will be successful. But if we are just to bring in legislation in this House and approach this as a State or semi-State industry, then the question of success is very doubtful indeed.

The idea of a State board in this country is not welcomed because of the manner in which many of those boards have been hamstrung in the past and because of the attempt to run State and semi-State boards on the same lines as private enterprise. That is the mistake that has been made. They should never be run on those lines. The result has been that those who favoured private enterprise are given a glorious opportunity of condemning what could be a tremendous means of exploitation for many people. That is why the co-operative system, which includes State representation in a big way, should not run on the purely Civil Service lines of the Department of Agriculture or any of those other Departments involved. It is necessary, of course, to give powers to such a group, such a co-operative undertaking, with regard to the acquisition of necessary land in so far as the provisions of this Bill are concerned, but what I want to get at is to give the powers given to the State in this Bill to a co-operative, not on the lines suggested in the Bill, of another group taken under the Minister's wing.

We know what has happened in the past when power of that nature is exercised purely on a Departmental basis. If that particular change could come about—I do not suppose that there is much hope at this stage in appealing to the Minister—if we do tackle the fishing industry on that line, I believe success will attend the effort. The markets are there: there is no doubt that for processed fish in a variety of forms, there is a tremendous market all over the world, particularly behind the Iron Curtain, in Eastern Europe. If only we had the initiative and energy and drive in that regard, this market could be captured. Look at what it can mean to our young people to have an industry which is based on raw material within our grasp, a much more secure type of livelihood, and a much better proposition for the country as a whole than depending on industries for which the raw material must be carried thousands of miles and over the availability of which we exercise no control.

The Bill makes provision to regulate the sale of fish but I would like the Minister to elaborate a little more on that point. He says that at each centre —I presume he means the five centres referred to in the Bill—adequate facilities for the sale of fish landed will be made available, and also that the fish landed at the centre will be offered or should be offered for sale at that centre. The Minister will also be enabled to specify the manner in which the sale shall be conducted. I should like the Minister to give us some information on this very important matter. I know that he says that whether it is necessary to use any of these powers will depend on the circumstances obtaining from time to time. This is the type of thing that leaves the Minister in a position to be very vague on how these powers will be exercised.

The House will recall the straitjacket position in which this industry found itself a few years ago. For instance, fish caught in Galway was transported to Dublin and auctioned there and then transported back to Galway for sale in the town. That was the official position. The fish did not improve as far as freshness is concerned. If ever there was madness in the approach to the fishing industry, it was apparent in that particular instance. That is why I am anxious to know what the Minister means in regard to taking the necessary powers for the sale of fish where it is landed.

There can be no denying that it is those people who control the distribution and sale of fish who decide what price the fisherman is going to get and what price the consumer is going to pay. That is even done before it can get down as far as the harbour. The question arises, therefore, of protection for those who catch the fish, and it reinforces my point that there is terrible exploitation of those who work so hard and are anxious to expand their efforts but who have been exploited and have no say in the prices of their catches and no rewards for their skill, and the housewife also is at the mercy of the same group who act as factors.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Would the Senator say who would decide the price under his proposals?

Mr. McQuillan

I am satisfied that the question of the distribution would be got over if the whole distribution of fish were through a co-operative system. I think that Senator Ó Maoláin would agree with me on that, that it would be a much better proposition if it were on a co-operative basis. I am sure he would agree with his former leader in that regard, who sought to persuade members of the Fianna Fáil Party to give the co-operative systems a chance as far as distribution is concerned. It would provide the means of giving the public a continued supply of fish, and a steady supply with nothing irregular about it.

No doubt improvements have taken place in regard to plant, equipment, freezing equipment and so forth in recent years. But the control is still exercised by the people at the ports who say: "This will be the price". That is all right where private enterprise is stalemate. This is a national industry and we should not put money at the disposal of people to exploit it for purely personal reasons. The interests of the community are not served in this regard. There are many other areas where private enterprise can be allowed to flourish but certainly not in the second major industry in the State. I hope the Minister will comment on the points I have raised when he replies.

Professor Quinlan

It is-rather sad to see a national resources so greatly needing development as our fisheries once again being used as just another step in the spread of State control in this country. This Bill could have been reduced to three lines saying that the Minister can do everything he likes in the development of these harbour centres. I think the previous speakers rightly showed the proper and logical way in which development should take place. If ever there was a case for the development of the co-operative movement and the co-operative spirit it is in this. The opportunity has been lost. In fact, the reports we have had over five to seven years on the development of a co-operative movement in this country might as well have never been prepared because there does not seem to be the slightest intention by the Government to act on any of them. Once again a major opportunity of acting in the spirit that has made Nova Scotia great in the development of its fishery industry, acting in the spirit that has made Denmark great, has been lost.

This is to be killed at birth solely in the interests of creating one other big section in the Department of Agriculture as if it were not big enough already. We are given absolutely no details about this section. Will the section be developed and headed by people from within who have little or no contract with the fishing industry or with the development of fishery harbours in the modern sense?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Like university professors.

Professor Quinlan

Are we to have a proper set-up with specialists recruited from people who have been abroad, who have seen how these things should be carried out in a technological fashion and who are not stifled at the top by administrators who have no knowledge of the industry? It is sad to see such an abortive attempt being made at developing our harbours. It is sadder still when you know the inside story, when you know what has been subscribed to some of these harbours which are now brushed aside like Cork County Council in relation to Castletownbere. Perhaps the Minister would explain why Cork County Council cannot be allowed to go ahead with the development of Bantry harbour and why the small toll for tonnage was not given. All those in Cork who had ability to judge judged rightly and, consequently, it is just again another case of the Civil Service machine cracking down on the local initiative and failing to allow the harbour authority go ahead as it should. If there were a case there it is for the regionalisation of those harbour authorities and I cannot see much difference between the technique and the ability required to develop a proper fishery harbour and that in regard to the development of some major harbour like the port of Cork or the port of Galway.

Indeed, if ever there was a case for leaving that to the local authority and allow them get on with their work this surely is the opportunity. If they had been proud to join in in some way in the involvement needed in industry of this nature on a co-operative basis, then we should see a structure that would have within itself the same dynamism and drive for success as has been evident at all times in the recent upsurge in Nova Scotia, through Antigonish, among industries other than the fishing industry. It may surprise Senator Ó Maoláin to know that the dynamism there came from the university. It came from their bridging of a local credit movement putting their money out to work with the people in the industry to lead them on to help themselves. It seems to be the one thing we ignore here. It is amazing in a country committed to Christian principles, at least from the point of view of lip service, that when it comes to practical organisation we are more totalitarian than any western European country except when it comes to introducing the supremacy of the almighty State Department.

Perhaps it is not too late to learn from the real discontent in the present troubles in France, in so far as it is real and not acted on by people jumping on the band-wagon. The real discontent, revolt and rebellion, is against French bureaucracy. That day is not too far off here and the greatest culprit is the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and, indeed I might say in parenthesis, the Department which has got least from the Irish economy of what that economy is capable of.

Is it too late to reject this Bill and introduce one that would set this up on a proper basis, avoiding the reference of every decision to the Minister's Department in Dublin, to a section that has probably never been geared to modern technological advance; in other words to a section in which administration and not proper technological development is all important?

It is sad to read this. It is sad to go through and see that the whole new authority is dismissed in one line on page 2 of the Minister's speech where it says:

Orders made under this section will transfer to the Minister's control each of the five harbours named in the Schedule and constitute in him a new and single harbour authority responsible for their maintenance operation, management and development.

When I think of the time we spend discussing various other semi-State bodies and the careful way we go into their constitution, their scope, their powers and so on, it is sad that here we have opted to give a blank cheque to the Minister to rub out authorities who never got a chance to get going and to substitute one unlimited, unknown and unfettered authority for this. Are we going mad? The only remedy for everything is State control. The illogicality and inhumanity of that would not be tolerated in countries in which there is State control. I appeal to the Government to learn from Antigonish, to learn what can be done in small regions with local groups sharing in the development of our resources. If there is one industry that should be localised, depending on the character of local groups, it is the fishing industry with the development of the local harbours together with all the other ancillary works. There is no room in the State to operate this industry and there is no room in the State to rule from the capital.

Mr. McDonald

There are many points where the fishing industry is in need of rejuvenation and overhauling. One of the main problems of the industry is that of distribution. It always seems illogical to me, when listening to the fish marketing reports on the radio, to remember that when one goes looking for fish within a radius of 50 or 60 miles of Dublin, one finds that the prices are from seven to ten times greater than they were at the auction that morning. Many of our people are being deprived of fish in that way. Now that the State is taking such a great interest in the fishing industry, there is hope that the Department will look into this important matter of distribution.

I also feel that something should be done to protect our coastal fisheries. Time and again we hear of the lack of fishery protection and, while I know that this is the function of the Department of Defence, now that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries seems to be taking a hand in the development of the industry, perhaps he will do something about protecting our rich and valuable fishing grounds from the foreign trawlers who spend too much time too near our coasts.

Previous speakers have raised many points of interest and, perhaps, the Minister will, in the course of his reply, enlighten the Seanad a little as to the reason why in this age of decentralisation and the great move to the West, his Department would appear to be doing quite the reverse. If it is logical for one Department to go through the process of complete decentralisation, it is difficult to understand why the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries should challenge that move to such an extent as to take over completely the running of the industry.

Mr. Honan

I cannot help thinking in reverse to some of the opinions I have heard in relation to this Bill. Every maritime county in this country has a number of ports, large or small, which were used at some time or other for inshore fishing. Perhaps, because of the non-profitability of this operation, the people mainly engaged in it were small farmers and they gave it up. Every county council is saddled with ports of all sizes which they do not want at all and on which they do not wish to spend money. In my area, between the Shannon and the west coast, there must be ten or 15 of them, small ports that are derelict and no use to anybody. Everybody moves away from the question of providing money for them and the local councils do not see any future in providing money to modernise ports for which there is no use.

Every time there is a proposal to spend money on these ports the proposal is sent back to the Department and it is suggested that they are responsible. So far as I can see, the Minister is now accepting the responsibility that is being handed back to him and he has selected five important ports for development for the fishing industry. The first thing you have to do is to catch the fish and to my mind, there seems to be quite a gap between the landing price of the fish and the price the public are being expected to pay for that fish. For a maritime nation we must provide the smallest market in the world for the consumption of fish; we are not a fish-eating people.

Mr. McQuillan

That is because fish was eaten as a punishment.

Mr. Honan

That may be so, but, whatever the reason, the market is not there. People who catch fish along our coasts do not find a ready market for it. I think the Minister is doing no more than accepting the responsibility which is being handed back to him by the people who have possession of the harbours and know that something needs to be done for them but do not wish to spend the money on doing it.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I find myself in agreement with Senator Honan on this matter and I would appeal to the Minister not to allow himself to be frightened by Senator Quinlan. Senator Quinlan takes fright at the use of the word "State", not realising that the State is all of us, that the State is the community. In so far as we can keep control over the Government and its Ministers, they are generally active for the good of the community when they introduce legislation of this kind. There is an attraction in the idea which was put before us, a suggestion that it would be better to embark on the development of the fishing industry on a co-operative basis but in the deprived and under-capitalised state of the industry this is not possible.

The Minister should be congratulated on introducing a measure of this kind. Under such measures the community interest predominates but I should also like to see the Minister's active concern with the problem of excessive profits for middlemen, with the problem of better distribution and with the question of the more equitable distribution of the money derived from fishing amongst those who do the actual work. It is evident from this carefully-worded Bill that the Minister is taking power to enable him to do this kind of thing. We have to believe that his intentions are good and I cannot help feeling that if we had a Minister for Housing who would be seriously preoccupied with the acquisition of land for housing, and who would not allow the speculation and racketeering that goes on, such a Minister could learn a lot from a Bill such as the one we have before us.

I do not think we need to be ashamed—I have been critical, on occasion, from the point of view of detail—of our State enterprises. The ESB have done an excellent piece of work; Bord na Móna are a body of which we should be proud; the Sugar Company and many others have shown the way by taking a few steady steps towards socialism. They have shown the way along which our fishing industry also can go and therefore when I find the Minister also, in manner unafraid, taking a few steps on the path towards socialism, the path along which he was directed two or three years ago, if my memory serves me correctly, by Deputy Seán Lemass —who said the time had come for this country and his Party to move further to the left—I congratulate him. My hope is that he will insist, by the powers vested in him by the Bill, that community interests shall prevail and not private greeds which claim much of our economy and which take precedence over community weal.

Mr. Blaney

The last speaker has to some degree answered in a very definite way some of the criticism, badly founded, made by other speakers. However, I shall leave that general issue aside for the moment. In reply to Senator FitzGerald, who spoke about this being a very belated measure, the fact is that it was not needed until now in the sense of the needs of present circumstances. It is also right to draw the attention of the House again to the fact that though the legislation is only now before the House, £500,000 has been spent on the development of three of our five harbours and a further £130,000 is being spent during the present year.

This is a long way short of the "too little too late" philosophy we have been hearing. It is a long way short of the fact that this started as long ago as 1963 and that we have progressed since to the point at which £500,000 has already gone into the preparatory work of dredging and so forth and that £130,000 more is being spent this year. As well, other plans have been prepared for all of our harbours in various stages of development in the immediate years ahead. We need this Bill to enable us to go further because far from the idea being correct that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries wants to grab something which is of some value to somebody else, the fact is that without getting the powers provided for in this Bill, particularly in regard to control and land acquisition, we have gone as far as we can in the development of fishery harbours, and unless we get the finances and the authority from the Oireachtas, we cannot go any further. This legislation, then, has been to a degree forced on us rather than that we are grabbing.

Secondly, it is not true to say that we have been doing nothing since it was announced in the Second Programme. The fact is that we have been doing positive work during the intervening years. There is a great deal that can be said about fishing, all of it uncomplimentary, which is what we generally hear. With all of our natural advantages due to our location, to our coastline, to the existence of some of the finest fishing grounds in Europe, particularly off the west coast, we should keep in mind constantly that all the talk about the great times we had in fishing in the past must be contrasted with the situation that there are few people, including those who had a fair personal knowledge of the circumstances of those days, who would go back to them, back to the drudgery, the slavery, the dangerous occupation as against the improved situation and the improving job fishing now is.

Due to many and varied developments, none of which came about without action, help and participation of different Governments for quite a long time, this is something we should take in its proper perspective. We should stop weeping and wailing about the great fishing days in the past when it was abject slavery, when people only did it because there was just nothing else for them to do or because they did not know any better. We should now concentrate on the future, on the value of developing our fisheries along modern lines. In order to do this we need a number of things. We need trained personnel for the craft of the day if we are to take any worth out of the sea with much less drudgery and danger than in the past. We need harbours wherein to land the fish and to anchor safely our boats which have cost us vast amounts of money and which are virtually small factories in their own way. We want more of these better and bigger craft with all the modern appliances being devised and now being used by fishermen here and throughout the world.

Of course we want marketing and distribution systems and the question is which of a number of these things should we put first. It is very difficult to say which comes first. We need them all if we are to have a thriving fishing industry. We shall learn fully only as we go along, but trained personnel is the first requirement and this we have attempted to get. We are stepping up our training facilities and establishments which heretofore had been doing a job sufficient for the time but which will not be sufficient for the needs of the future.

All sorts of arrangements have been made by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in the matter of the making available of boats, with credit facilities, from outside in addition to the building of boats here at home. Very attractive grants and subsidised loans, with attendant bonuses have been provided. Surely this is indicative of the wish of this Government and past Governments to push on with this industry to whose potential we are not blind? I agree with one view expressed here today, that there is colossal potential in the fishing industry. However, it is not by talking about it but by working for it that we shall get something done about it, and when I hear the holy redeemer attitude of the Senator from Cork when speaking about co-operatives and credit unions, as if this name " co-operative", if used in the proper way, will itself do the job, I find myself deciding that this is the sort of talk we hear far too much and too often in regard to many of our problems.

Apparently, so long as one mentions " co-operative" in the proper manner, the job will be done in a better way. People who use these terms are those who are challenging people like me and others in Government as to what we mean when we say clearly what we do mean. They give us the alternative of a co-operative and when they use the word, they say it will do everything better. This is the greatest fallacy on God's earth. It has been preached to the agricultural community and to the fishing industry until I am sick of hearing it, and indeed to the point where it has done damage——

Professor Quinlan

What about the example of Nova Scotia?

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Go to Nova Scotia.

Mr. Blaney

I will take you back to the Nova Scotia thing and where it emanated from, but I want to say that it has been said that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is the biggest failure as regards lack of progress but the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is the Department that has had delegated to it the greatest amount of co-operative movements. Am I right? Is there a lesson to be learned from that? All this free talk by people who are non-doers about what cooperation can do is spoiling a lot of our people at the moment and making them believe, because they hear it talked of in a nice and good way and in a respectful manner, that this all-embracing matter of co-ops can do the world and all without working. This is what is being hammered across and instead of its helping to forward real co-operatives, it is breeding the view in the minds of many of our people that all you have to do is get together, call yourself a co-operative and Bob's your uncle, the job is done. There are far, far too many, like Senator Quinlan, who talk in those terms and do nothing and this is really the core of many of our problems today, that we have far too many talkers and too few doers and this applies in fishery just as in farming or any other walk of life.

In so far as distribution is concerned, this is in the last analysis, so far as the home market is concerned, the vital element in my estimation. Again, we have not been standing still in this matter. We have been providing, and are at this present time providing, with the greatest possible expedition the stores and the iceplants that are essential if we are to have distribution done on an original harbour to harbour basis. We must have this. We must have the ice; we must have the carrying capacity so that supplies are continuous rather than the day there is good fishing, everybody is fishing and the day there is bad fishing nobody is out. This is not the way to service the market if you want to hold it. Therefore, we have provided, and are at the right point providing, storage, providing iceplants in order to keep over fish from the day you have too much to the day you have not enough and realising that fish are just not harvested by numbers, day to day, that there are all sorts of things that emerge, that change the take and change the catch, and that you cannot and will not get our people or any other people to eat fish merely when we have it but rather that we must provide it as they want it.

We must provide it steadily and continuously; otherwise we cannot have a real demand for fish in this or any other country. This is probably why we have not got the taste for fish, particularly away from the coast, we might have. At the coastline itself, one of the probable reasons we have not got a taste for fish is that maybe for too many years they got too much of the taste of fish and not enough of the taste of anything else. This is an aspect that people must take into consideration, particularly if one comes from near the west coast and realises that this may still be so. If we are to harness our own market in the future, we must have continuous supplies in good condition and this is the only way the public will give to the fishermen of this country a ready market.

In so far as the costs and the difference between what the fisherman gets and what the consumer pays, this is a matter that must undoubtedly be gone after and gone after strenuously but remember again our marketing arrangement in the country as a whole is practically non-existent. It is haphazard and non-continuous. The quality may not be good but we are heading towards the curing of these things. When we have got to the stage where this has been done to a proper degree, then I think that if it is necessary, we can really get after this question of profit margins; but remember if we are haphazardly selling as we are doing at the moment, without any proper storage facilities, we cannot expect that fish will be sold at a level that would be regarded as a reasonable profit margin because fishing is an unreasonable business trying to get it from point to point when you have it and so forth. To get it into a regularised system we need more fish landed, more regular storage, better distribution of marketing and remember this is being done with the actual encouragement of those of us engaged in this matter.

Our people are beginning to cook fish as if it was something worth cooking rather than just doing it on Friday when we, as one particular majority religion, have had to eat it or do without. This is the way in which we have treated our fish. This is the way in which we approached our fish. Taking all these things into consideration, it does not surprise me at all that we have not got a market, but neither does it discourage me. I believe that if we can cure all these little things—and they are little things—we can develop a very good market in this country for fish, not only to the benefit of the fishermen but to the benefit of the people as well, but we need it cooked better, treated better, stored better, presented better and supplied in an even, steady, continuous flow. At that stage we will have no trouble selling more fish in this country than we are prepared to take at the moment.

Outside markets are still a problem and will continue to be but again in that regard we would hope our marketing organisation will find ever-expanding markets. Again we have got to build up our fleet, to build up our take and we cannot be going into the market today with a big catch of fish when everybody else has fish, too, and not going in at all tomorrow when there is a shortage. The thing is to have supplies that you can present, as and when they are needed by the customer. The customer is not going to stand around waiting until you have too much fish. He will not be there then. You must supply him on the day he needs it.

With regard to the suggestion of State and semi-State bodies being a better way of doing things than the Minister doing them and taking control into his own hands which was mentioned, in so far as those harbours are concerned, they are being taken over and, for instance, in Cork, the county council were delighted to get rid of Castletownbere. We hear it being talked about here. Why did we not facilitate them in Bantry? This has nothing to do with my Department. Whether or not they were facilitated is something I do not know.

Professor Quinlan

It concerns national policy, surely?

Mr. Blaney

You would not obviously know the difference between national policy and day-to-day operations. This would be a day-to-day operation of my colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

He has heard of Cabinet responsibility, though.

Mr. Blaney

In so far as Castletownbere is concerned, for the information of the Senator from the south, Cork County Council did not want Castletownbere and when they had it, they were not doing anything with it.

Likewise, the other ports that are being talked about here are now valuable merely because of the fact that this legislation indicates that the Minister for Agriculture has taken them under his wing. They were not valuable yesterday or the day before. It would be very interesting and enlightening and educational for the Senator if he sought out what the fishermen of these areas thought about whether or not these harbours should be taken over by the Minister. It would be very interesting to hear their views.

These are the points that should be recalled and remembered in our approach to this. It is not good enough to come in and criticise merely because of the fact that the Government, acting through the Minister for Fisheries, are prepared to do something and while doing it, are prepared to take the responsibility of doing it and do not believe in handing that responsibility of Government over to some faceless people who have no responsibility and who cannot be challenged by the Members of this or the other House. I do not believe that is the way to approach things, and I have no intention of reversing engines merely to satisfy those who feel that because they themselves do not back the present Government and have no hope of ever becoming the Government themselves, everything should be handed over and given away by way of power, transferred to autonomous bodies responsible to no one and answerable to no one and never having been elected. That is the negation, surely, of democracy as we know it, and it is about time that it was spelled out really for those who go on warbling about the great benefits there are to be gained if we only give away the powers which we as the Government have been elected by the people of this country to wield in their interest and on their behalf.

Why should we? This is running away from government, and, as I said yesterday in the Dáil on another similar matter, it seems to me that the people opposite us here are so bereft of any thought that they will ever get into Government in their own time that they want to dissipate whatever power the Government enjoy because Fianna Fáil are in office. This is something that we should seriously think about. I know that you have enough to think about at the moment. You have your troubles, God knows—there is no doubt about it. Everybody has his troubles but you have yours in plenty, and maybe it is only fair to you to be talking about other things.

Mr. McQuillan

You are whistling passing graveyards.

Mr. Blaney

I do not mind passing graveyards, whistling or otherwise.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Whether the Minister is whistling passing graveyards or not, it is now half-past four and there is an order to take No. 1 now. What does the House wish to do? Has the Minister concluded?

Mr. Blaney

Indeed I have not.

Professor Quinlan

Will the Minister promise to enlighten us about Nova Scotia?

Mr. Blaney

I will, if the Chair will allow me about 15 minutes more.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The question is: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Blaney

I have not finished.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister said earlier that he had finished.

Mr. Blaney

I decidedly said that I had not finished.

Mr. McQuillan

We all misunderstood you.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That is not unusual on the other side, but everybody on this side of the House heard it.

Mr. McQuillan

If the House wants to facilitate the Minister——

Mr. Blaney

I must bow to the ruling of the Chair, but the Chair has not ruled and I do not know what to do.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The question is that No. 1 was ordered for 4.30.

The House may carry out that order or vary it, if it so wishes. Perhaps the Leader of the House would tell us what we should do.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

How much longer will the Minister take?

Mr. Blaney

Another ten minutes, provided there are no major interruptions.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Does the House wish to vary the order and enable it to be concluded by 4.45?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Agreed.

Mr. Blaney

About Nova Scotia, in my haste to get finished, I neglected to say that the difference between Nova Scotia and people who formulate the co-op movement here is that apparently they have workers who put the idea into operation whereas those who formulate the co-op movement here think that all is well when they are talking but they do not have to do anything.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Blaney

I thought we had lost the Senator Professor because I had not seen him for such a long time. I was glad to hear that he was willing to give the co-op a trial. Too often the attitude is to talk about it but it is not so easy to find somebody willing to work on it and make people believe what can be achieved when there is a job to be done.

Professor Quinlan

We have hundreds prepared to do it if they were given an opportunity.

Mr. Blaney

The situation seems to be that there is a group of people, with whom I feel that you are closely in line, who will do anything, provided somebody else is prepared to do the work and you do not mind taking the credit.

Professor Quinlan

You cannot accuse me of not doing anything. Let the Minister just look at the university records, or the records of this House.

Mr. Blaney

To get further on, I will try to answer some of the other queries which were raised. Fish, it has been suggested, should be sold at the port of landing; but I thought that I had already made it fairly clear that the intention would be that where it is feasible and desirable in the best interests of the fishermen and of the industry as a whole, it is the intention to do just that. It is fairly specifically mentioned in the Bill as one of the powers and functions that I will be exercising in the future. This idea of the Galway-Dublin and return journey merely for the sake of getting across here for auction and going back in a much inferior condition is something of which I have had experience over a number of years from my own county. I am fully alive to the fact that it is just not sane, but the point is that we had to do in the past some things which were queer and which happened to the detriment of the producer and of the consumer as well. I hope that we can rearrange things better in the future and avoid unnecessary cost, unnecessary handling and deterioration of fish as a result.

The suggestion was made by Senator Garret FitzGerald that the fishing industry is under-financed. I think that probably in one context this could be said to be true. On the other hand, it is true that to-day we have reached the point where in so far as the provision of boats is concerned, for the bigger boats we require trained personnel and we are training and providing them as fast as possible, and there is a fair ratio as between the supply of boats with more facilities and the demand for suitably qualified skippers at the different ports on the coast. I had hoped that both these things would move in unison in the future and that more and more people will be suitably equipped from the training point of view and that boats will be available requisite to their needs and experience as they become available.

Side by side with that, apart altogether from these major harbour jobs we are talking about here and the developments foreshadowed for them, we have other jobs going ahead at different places throughout the country. For the past 18 months, and it is still continuing, such a survey is being carried out, starting away down on the south coast and moving now right up the west coast and soon to the north coast, giving us their best advice as to what developments in harbour and anchorage facilities should be provided in addition to the five major harbours covered in this Bill.

I feel that we are moving on a pretty broad front. We are moving to train and educate our fishermen and are making provision for suitable boats and the development not only of the major harbours and of auxiliary processing facilities but also giving attention to more minor, or less major, harbours throughout the country. The provision of iceplants and storage at many points throughout the country now is also the basis on which better distribution for better home marketing, apart altogether from export, can be provided. The position has now been reached that those iceplants and stores are being provided and—this would probably be some little consolation to Senator Quinlan who talks about the co-op here—we are encouraging fishermen's co-ops at several points on our coasts at the moment. We have the IAOS down there with our blessing, and in many cases at our invitation, to help to form those co-ops and to give them a lead as to what they mean, and we are also helping financially the IAOS to aid those people by our major contribution annually which is provided for them under my Department's Estimate. These are the things which I think people should be looking at rather than crying "wolf" and making a lot of to-do about nothing when it comes down to the point.

There was a request for a White Paper or for more details being given in some general form and I will consider this. I did feel that the requirements in the Bill itself would bring about a situation wherein the information and the detail about what is to be done would have to be given when I make any orders in regard to my functions under the Bill. Under section 2 (6) (a), I am obliged to give notice of intention to make orders and to specify what these are intended to encompass. I was relying on this for this type of forewarning or advance notice in regard to what we intend to do. I will certainly have a look at the position to see whether we might have a composite overall projection of what was proposed for the next five years in a White Paper or a memorandum and see if there is a useful exercise on which to embark.

Finally, Dunmore East was mentioned as a problem which had arisen in the past in regard to auctions and selling and as to who should land there and who should not. I had hoped that the powers vested in me by this Bill would enable me to overcome that type of problem. The Dunmore East problem as we knew it does seem to have diminished or run its course. I hope this is so. The powers in the Bill are such that we should be in a better position to deal with such a situation in the future than we were in the past. Other matters of greater detail can usefully be discussed and answered, if answers are needed, on Committee Stage. I thank the House for facilitating me on this Second Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Professor Quinlan

I wish to be recorded as dissenting. I could not be party to this measure which is merely a piece of——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will be recorded as dissenting.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 19th June, 1968.