The following is the timetable for the remainder of the debate which has been handed to me by the Whips: 7 p.m. to 7.10 p.m. Deputy Michael Ahern; 7.10 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. Deputy Michael Begley; 7.15 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. Deputy P.J. Sheehan; 7.20 p.m. to 7.40 p.m. the Minister of State at the Department of Fisheries and Forestry; 7.40 p.m. to 7.55 p.m. Deputy Denis Gallagher; 7.55 p.m. to 8.03 p.m. Deputy Clement Coughlan; 8.03 p.m. to 8.10 p.m. Deputy J. Browne; 8.10 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. Deputy Denis McGinley; and 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Deputy Cope Gallagher. I am calling Deputy Ahern and he has ten minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Irish Fishing Industry: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Daly on Tuesday, 3 April 1984:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for their failure to arrest the alarming deterioration of the Irish fishing industry, and calls on them to take immediate action to deal with the current crisis, and to formulate and implement a policy which will fully develop the potential of our fishery resources within the context of the EEC Common Fisheries Policy.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1.
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute:
"notes and endorses the Government's policy for the development and improvement of the Irish fishing industry within the context of the EEC Common Fisheries Policy."
—(Minister for Fisheries and Forestry.)
I am glad to get this opportunity to support this Fianna Fáil motion. I could not let the opportunity go but to put on the record the very serious financial position of the Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries boards on whom the statutory responsibility rests for the management, development and conservation policies of inland fisheries.
It is necessary to highlight the disastrous financial position the boards find themselves in due to the failure of the Government to provide adequate financial resources for them to carry out their duties. The boards are hit by the Government embargo on recruitment which forbids them from hiring the essential staff they need. Without any exaggeration the effects of the aforementioned under-financing and under-staffing means that the boards are under-equipped and inadequately geared to face up to the serious threats of poaching and pollution. Some sections of their activities which are vitally important will be cut back by 15 per cent to 16 per cent in real terms in the coming year.
The boards were unlucky when they were being restructured in 1980 and 1981 to be caught up almost immediately in the embargo on recruitment and have since been handicapped in their endeavours to meet their statutory obligations. The Minister must acknowledge that if there is to be any prospect of bringing forward a worthwhile development plan for inland fisheries he must provide the financial and staff resources needed, and he must do this immediately. Otherwise the whole exercise will be a waste of time.
There are in the region of 6,000 people employed in this area of fishing and the revenue from visiting anglers is £20 million to £25 million per annum. All this is being put in jeopardy as is the prospect of further advancement in this area. The development of inland fisheries from a local as well as a tourist point of view is being severely handicapped and hampered by this short-sighted retrograde step. I call on the Minister to restore now the necessary finances and to make a special case for the exclusion of these boards from the strict embargo on recruitment in view of what is taking place throughout the country. At present some fishery boards are resorting to raffles and other methods of fund raising to finance their activities. The board find themselves in a very difficult position and the Minister must help them.
In Rossmore, Carrigtwohill, County Cork, there is one of the most successful oyster farms in the world, but it is under constant threat from pollution. Unless the Government fulfil the promises made in the last three elections to provide a treatment plant for the Midleton sewerage scheme it is fairly certain that this success story will become a tragedy. I call on the Government not to renege on another of their promises. If this oyster factory is destroyed by pollution it will be a disaster for the area and for the country.
In Youghal a successful fishermen's co-operative is operating at present but it depends to a large degree on the goodwill of the Minister in office to extend the salmon season by a couple of weeks. Over the last few weeks one could count on one's hands the number of salmon caught by the fishermen in the Youghal area. I call on the Minister to tell the House and the fishermen on the south coast what his policy is on the use of monofilament nets being used further up the coastline which prevent salmon travelling to the south coast and I would like the Minister to tell us what he intends to do about the use of those nets.
I announced that three weeks ago.
When the time comes I would like the Minister to extend the salmon season to facilitate the fishermen in the south who depend for their bread and butter on these extra few weeks.
In Youghal there are many unused factories which would be ideal for fish processing plants. At present there is plenty of manpower available in the town of Youghal and the surrounding areas. The provision of a processing plant would be of enormous benefit to the economy of this black spot and I ask the Minister to look into the possibility of setting up a processing plant there because there is plenty of fish to be caught in the area but the Bulgarian trawlers are catching the fish which could be used to create jobs here if a little foresight were used.
We must get our marketing right. A perennial problem in Ireland is the lack of expertise in this industry. Until we get our marketing right — not only the export market but the home market too, where consumption has fallen dramatically — the fishing industry will not reach the stage it should be at. Again I ask the Minister to ensure that this problem is looked into.
I fear for the future of this industry, more so since last night when the Minister made as insipid a speech as we have heard in this House. He did not appear to be interested in what we were discussing. If this is the attitude of the Minister for Fisheries, it does not augur well for the future of fishing.
I am calling Deputy Begley. He has five minutes.
I was very surprised that not one Opposition speaker dared to criticise Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the agency running our fishing industry.
We will leave that to Deputy Begley.
I think An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are great for producing glossy annual reports but they are a disaster as far as the fishermen are concerned. Since 1979 they have repossessed 35 boats.
I said that last night.
It is unreasonable to interrupt the Deputy when he has only a limited time to make his contribution.
With five job losses per boat, that would be a total of about 145. At a meeting I recently attended with Deputy Denis Gallagher and others we were informed that some of those repossessed boats are resold to Northern Ireland people for a song and they in turn sell them to fishermen in Scotland. That is a despicable situation. Not only has the Exchequer lost but we have put people out of work and deprived them of a decent living.
BIM have paid £722,000 rent for an office in Dún Laoghaire which is not yet occupied and, believe it or not, they are now ready to pay another £750,000 for staff to be transferred to that office. I have here a report on the inspection carried out in these new offices in Dún Laoghaire on 1 March 1984 by a very reputable architect. Some of the findings are as follows:
Structural Matters.
A large crack is evident in the edge beam over the access door to the balcony of the fifth floor. This crack, which could not be described as hairline, appears to go right through the beam and extends into the adjacent roof slab. There is evidence of concrete crumbling in the vicinity of the crack. If the roof slab is a two-way span — and only original engineer's drawings can confirm this — then this beam supports the roof, in which case the structural integrity of the building is in question.
This is the new office on which £1.5 million has already been spent. No wonder the staff do not want to go there.
Architectural Matters.
There is evidence of internal roof leaks. Because of the particular roof construction with insulation on top, the last layer was impossible to inspect.
The report goes on to state:
I understand that an attempt to remedy the roof leaks was carried out by the original builder, Crampton, not by repairing the leaks but by fixing a metal tray to the underside of the roof to bring the water out.
This gets better and better. The report continues:
The windows are very badly fitted in places. I noticed daylight between the sash and the frame in one instance and I was unable to push the sash closed. These windows will be a source of considerable draughts when the building becomes operational.
Recommendations.
I would strongly recommend that a structural engineer's report be got on this building in relation to the items I have listed. This will require the removal of existing ceilings and plaster finishes. The roof should be stripped temporarily of its insulation and smooth stones to enable a thorough inspection.
Has the Deputy given the reference?
No. I am not giving a reference. It is a structural report which is confidential. If the Chair likes, I can cross the floor as another Deputy did recently and hand it to the Minister.
We hope it will be more accurate than the last one we got across the floor.
This report states that the building is dangerous and that nobody should go into it until there has been a complete structural report. I will hand the report to the Minister and to the Opposition Deputies afterwards if they want to read it.
It is time that a full-time professional chairman was appointed to BIM, a man who has been successful either in the semi-State or the private sector. We should give him the price he deserves if he is an excellent man.
The Deputy has a minute left.
A minute and a half, a Cheann Comhairle. The appointment of such a person would streamline the board and give them confidence. At the moment everybody is fighting. Something is wrong in the board when some person on the staff can hand this report to me. It has been compiled by a very reputable person.
I appeal to the Minister to get the marketing situation in order because only 3 per cent of the total allocation of £15 million is spent on marketing. That is a national disgrace. I am sorry I have not more time to speak because I have an excellent brief prepared.
It is a pity I have not more than five minutes to relate some facts about the fishing industry. Through the years it has been treated as a cinderella industry. Much talk but no action seems to have been the policy of successive Governments. We have over 9,000 fishermen but only 2,000 people are employed in the processing of fish. This is a sad indictment of years of native Government. For every one fisherman engaged in the industry in Denmark there are eight engaged in fish processing. Surely it would not be too much to ask that the same conditions should obtain here.
Side by side with the development of fisheries must go the development of harbours and landing facilities. Schull Harbour in south-west Cork is a glaring example of that necessity. As far back as 1919 while still under British rule plans were afoot for the development of this harbour. When you, a Cheann Comhairle, were in charge of fisheries you made vital progress in regard to getting the harbour extended and repaired and it is a pity your activities were hampered by a change of Government in 1981. Conditions there would not be as they are today had you been Minister for Fisheries. A fishing harbour without a decent pier is like a port without a decent dock. Surely it is not too much to ask the Minister that landing facilities be made available in a harbour facilitating fishing boats valued at between £2.5 million and £3 million. It is a sad reflection that successive Governments have pumped almost £14 million into the development of Howth Harbour and completely forgotten about the fishermen of south-west Cork, particularly in Schull.
The sooner the better we realise the serious implications of this neglect in the event of a storm. In such an event it could cost £5 million to replace lost fishing boats as well as £1 million to construct a pier. God forbid that this should happen but when the jug goes to the well it can be broken. I appeal to the Minister to expedite this extension to Schull pier. I will not stay quiet until the work is under way.
It is well known that foreign trawlers are marauding our fishing beds. Instead of trying to hamper the poor unfortunate fisherman trying to fish a few salmon during the summer season, the Minister should send the patrol boats after the Dutch, French and Danish super-trawlers who are ravaging stocks off our south-west coast. The fishery protection vessels should be apprehending these manufacturing ships, as well as those from Korea and Japan, instead of interfering with the poor unfortunate fisherman trying to eke out a living to support his wife and family in frugal circumstances.
We have a very sound man at the helm in Deputy O'Toole the Minister for Fisheries. Given the chance he and the junior Minister, Deputy D'Arcy, will benefit the fishing industry and give us support so far as the cost of oil is concerned. That is another very important subject which I hope will be dealt with by the Minister.
During the course of this debate a number of points were raised to which I should like to reply. It will not be possible for me to go into every detail. Even in 20 minutes it would be impossible for me to cover the different complaints which were made. I will pick out the ones I think are important and reply to them. The Minister and I have been seriously concerned about the marketing situation since taking office. It is evident that any improvement in demand and prices will benefit the fishermen directly. As the Minister indicated last night, an advisory group comprising representatives of all sectors of the industry and the State agencies involved have been meeting regularly under my chairmanship.
The terms of reference of the group are: to examine and identify available means to secure immediate increased sales of fish, both fresh and processed, at home and abroad so as to secure higher returns to the primary producer and the processor. One of the main functions of the group is to co-ordinate the efforts of the fishermen, processors, exporters and the State agencies involved in fish marketing. In this the group have met with considerable success. Under the auspices of the group a daily supply and market information service has been set up which, utilising the services of BIM, will provide information on quantities and prices of fish from auction centres around the coast, and provide information in regard to landing places where fish may be or is likely to be in surplus. This is a very important point. This type of information was never available before.
A sub-committee on herring marketing has also been set up to review the overall herring marketing position and to draw up a marketing action programme because of the serious difficulties being experienced in exporting herring. I am very pleased with the all round co-operation being given by the various interests, and the progress made to date.
The home market also offers potential for further development. This is not being overlooked. Recently I received a report on the domestic fish market from BIM following on a comprehensive survey of consumer attitudes carried out during 1983 together with an assessment of fish distribution. This report has confirmed the prospects for the expansion of domestic consumption of fish. However, such expansion would mainly benefit our white fish and shellfish sales and our bulk landings of pelagic species will still have to be disposed of on the export market.
This is the first time an attempt has been made to bring the entire industry around the one table. When this body were being set up the industry was looked at very carefully. I am glad to say that practically everybody with any interest in the fishing industry is on that board. We asked the organisations to select their own people. The organisations are as follows: The exporters, the fishermen, the processors, the co-ops, the retail fish industry, the IFO, my own Department and the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism who have a direct input from CTT. I am prepared to accept that the fish marketing advisory committee cannot sell every fish. They are there to co-ordinate the services available. Some extraordinary things came up before the board and some solutions were found.
As everybody is aware, we have a very serious problem in the Nigerian market in relation to the sale of mackerel. This is being followed up by the board, the Minister and the embassy in Nigeria. We are hoping licences will be made available in the very near future. The Minister is going on a trip to Japan, as he informed the Dáil last night, to look at fish sales in Japan. I am not trying to be critical of my predecessor, Deputy Daly, who got the Nigerian market and did a very good job there, but it is very bad for us to have all our eggs in one basket. Ninety per cent of our mackerel sales are to the Nigerian market. The Government have collapsed and the army have taken over. The licences have not been submitted to my Department to allow for the importation of mackerel into Nigeria. Diversification is very important in the sales market. We have 100,000 tonnes of mackerel to be sold. That is a huge amount of fish. I am hopeful that I will be able to make a trip very shortly to some of the east European countries with a view to selling mackerel and herring.
Like some of the Deputies I too am seriously concerned at the high level of arrears on boat loans. The board are examining ways and means of improving the situation. Deputies can rest assured that each case will be examined on its merits and it will be only as a last resort that vessels will be re-possessed. Deputy Walsh referred in particular to skippers in his area who purchased vessels with loans repayable in sterling. It has always been a condition that the skippers themselves carry the effects of currency changes and it would not be possible to make an exception in these cases. I must point out, however, that the terms of these loans were very favourable in that the cost of vessels was reasonable and the rate of interest applicable was much more favourable than that obtaining in Ireland at that time.
The rate of interest ranged from 9 per cent to 11½ per cent. When other businesses had to carry rates of interest of 18 per cent and 20 per cent in 1981 and 1982 the rate of interest for the purchase of boats remained at 11 per cent. That was a very favourable rate at that time and it still remains at 11 per cent.
I understand that Deputy H. Byrne said BIM were interested in bookkeeping at any cost. That is completely incorrect. Deputy Begley also criticised BIM. There is absolutely no basis for these criticisms. I have worked with BIM, their officials and the chief executive officer, Dr. Meaney, and I have nothing but the height of praise for them. They co-operated with me. There is no use in blaming BIM. They are a State agency working under the control of the Department. They are a development agency and they are trying to do two or three jobs with inadequate funds. Down through the years they have not been given adequate funds. Some of the criticisms of BIM are very unfair.
In a previous debate I gave an undertaking that, if a genuine fisherman made a genuine effort to repay his loan, his boat would not be repossessed by BIM. That still stands. I said that if Deputies felt people were being harassed by BIM this would get the personal attention of the Minister and myself. Since that debate we have not had one complaint from Deputies in Opposition or Deputies in our own parties. Surely that is an indication that BIM are making a reasonable attempt to do the job. As in every other industry, there are cowboys in the fishing industry too, and these are people we are not prepared to support, but we will support, as we have always supported, the genuine fisherman in respect of any problems he may have with his boat repayments. The Minister is of the same mind as myself on this matter.
Deputy Byrne expressed concern for the draft net fishermen on the River Slaney. I assure the Deputy that he need not concern himself further, because the Minister has agreed to allow an extension in the draft net season on the east coast for one week up to 20 August.
Only on the east coast?
It is easy to say that one week may not be much use in this context, but the people concerned are very glad of that extension. We must have regard to the question of conservation. I had meetings with the Slaney fishermen in particular and they asked me for a one-week extension. That may come as information to Deputy Browne, but it is the position in relation to the River Slaney. I would point out that this situation applies also to the craft, loop and snap net fishermen. It takes in the Duncannon area. If we were to allow an open season, we could forget about conservation, and the conservation of salmon is vital. If we do not have such conservation, the species will not continue to exist. The people concerned are very pleased about the extra week. We found that the draft net men particularly were getting a lesser percentage of the catch of salmon in the past five years. I would point out also that from 30 March, eel fishermen using fyke nets, under licence, upstream and downstream at the Wexford Bridge area will be allowed to fish during the period April to November. In 1979 a by-law was introduced whereby they were not allowed fish for eels south of the Wexford Bridge. After receiving deputations from the eel fishermen concerned, I spoke with the Minister and he gave favourable consideration to removing the by-law. This will be of much benefit to the fishermen concerned.
Deputy Byrne referred also to the Celtic Sea. I take this opportunity to thank the Celtic Sea Management Committee for the excellent manner in which herring fishing was regulated by them in the Celtic Sea during the past fishing season. Their efforts were a fine example of what can be achieved by co-operation between the various interests in the fishing industry. It is proposed to have discussions later with these various interests with a view to having the arrangements continued next season. The 1984 quota remains for the present at the 1983 level. However, this will be subject to review later by the Council of Ministers when more up-to-date scientific advice is received from ICES. I am confident that arising from this advice it will be possible for the Minister to negotiate a higher level of quota for herring in this fishery later in the year.
I understand that there was some criticism yesterday of the quotas in the Celtic Sea. I would remind the House that the quota in this area for 1984 is 8,100 tonnes and that the Irish quota is 7,000 tonnes or 87 per cent of the total catch for the season. This is a very favourable situation for our fishermen. It was negotiated by the Minister. He must be complimented on having done an excellent job.
It was negotiated by me.
Yes, while Deputy Daly was in office. I am not saying otherwise, but so far as we were concerned there was the demand for several fishing countries to fish in the Celtic Sea.
The arrangement is the same.
We succeeded in putting an end to that demand, but what is important to us is that the arrangement is very favourable to our fishermen.
The Government are continuing to improve the infrastructure that is so vital to the development of the fishing industry. Despite the present financial constraints, substantial funds are being provided to improve our harbour facilities, to provide ice plants and to re-equip the State's Decca navigation stations. Sums totalling more than £3 million are being provided for these purposes in the current year. New telephone exchanges are being provided in Castletownbere and Killybegs. This is a much needed improvement in communications, which are so vital in terms of the marketing of fish.
There was mention last evening of the need for improvement of a number of harbours. There was reference, for instance, to Schull. Deputy Sheehan is very interested in that harbour. I am fully aware of the situation there, and repairs to the pier are being considered for inclusion in the current year's harbour programme. I must explain, however, that arising from works in hand already, a considerable part of the £2.7 million provided this year is committed already and that it will not be possible to include the many improvement schemes which we would wish to see commence this year.
Deputy Byrne referred to Kilmore Harbour. I inspected the pier there in August last and found that it was in a deplorable condition, that it was in imminent danger of being washed away. Immediately I contacted my Department and in co-operation with Wexford County Council £60,000 has been spent on protection work at the harbour. I am considering a further grant of £50,000 to complete the work that was started there, work that is absolutely necessary. If we had not gone ahead with the work I venture to say that the pier would not be there now. A very big problem at Kilmore Harbour also was the fact that the sea was washing in across the harbour and washing out some of the boats. Three or four boats were broken up in this way in the past couple of years. I hope that when the work is completed there will not be a repetition of any such incidents.
The question of submarine activity off our coast is not a matter that is within the competence of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. However, because of its possible effect on fisheries I have personally taken a deep interest in the problem and I have been in touch with the Minister for Communications on the subject. The Minister made a statement in the House recently and I do not propose to dwell on the matter except to say that my Department have had no approach from the owner of the Sheralga in regard to the delay in payment of compensation by the British government, but if the facts of the case are submitted to me I will do what I can to expedite payment.
Investment in fish processing is continuing at a reasonably satisfactory level. Last year 11 fish-processing projects were approved for EEC FEOGA aid, amounting to £2.6 million.
The IDA policy in regard to fish processing is contained in the document, Strategy for Agricultural Processing Industry, which was issued by them in 1983. The basic approach is to encourage secondary rather than primary processing in the future. Any worthwhile fish-processing project can expect the full support of my Department.
The demand on the European markets in particular is not for processed fish. It is for first processing but not for secondary processing. This has to be taken into consideration in any expansion of the processing side. We have considered the figures closely with a view to ascertaining where we could have an input into that area. The demand is extraordinary in that everyone is looking for raw fish, so to speak, and that position will not change. We must yield to the demand of the consumer.
Deputy Joe Walsh asked for clarification in regard to the court arbitration award to Baltimore boatyard against BIM. This decision was only conveyed to BIM on 23 March and its implications are still being examined. Because of the possibility of further legal proceedings I do not propose to elaborate on the matter at this stage.
With regard to the proposed research unit at Kinsale, the position is that while the Department located the owner of the property abroad it has not been possible to purchase the selected site. A suitable alternative site is not available in the area.
We accept that not everything is rosy in the fishing industry, but we have taken the marketing in hand and we are waiting for the report of the Central Consultative Committee. When that report is available its recommendations will be closely assessed and no time will be lost in putting into operation its recommendations. We are giving that guarantee to the House.
Bá mhaith liom cúpla focal a chur leis an méid a dúradh ón taobh seo den Teach aréir agus a chur in iúl don Dáil agus don Phobal an drochbhail atá ar cheist na hiascaireachta i láthair na huaire.
I have listened for the past 20 minutes or so to the Minister of State and I am now even more depressed in so far as the whole question of the fishing industry is concerned. He has not put forward one constructive suggestion or idea relating to what should be happening in the fishing industry at the present time. The Minister of State seemed to be concerned only with his own little corner in Wexford, what was happening on the Slaney, the eel fisheries and Kilmore Quay. He did not broaden the scope of the debate to let us know what proposals, if any, are with his Department in relation to the future of the fishing industry. As we all know the fishing industry is at an all time low. Stocks of white fish in inshore waters have declined considerably and marketing and prices are no better than they were ten years ago. Fishermen who devoted their lives to the expansion of an industry which brought an improved standard of living to many ports in the west of Ireland are today, despite their best efforts, faced with the problem of tying up their boats and in many instances having them repossessed because they find it impossible to continue to meet their commitments. This has been admitted by Deputies on both sides of the House and it speaks for itself.
Catches and prices are not keeping pace with the many overheads fishermen have to meet. If something is not done very quickly this very promising and what was at one time a fairly lucrative source of employment for our fishermen is absolutely doomed. We have to admit this and, as I said earlier, from what we have heard from the Minister there does not seem to be any hope or any future in relation to what could be done for this industry. Seeing this happening without any action, without any encouragement and without any glimmer of hope for the future from the Minister for Fisheries or the Government is depressing for all sections of the industry. We all admit that for a number of years it was not possible to plan for the future of the industry because of the uncertainty in the EEC position. Now that a common fisheries policy has been decided on it is possible to plan for the industry. One would have thought that at this stage the Minister and the Department would be putting plans before the House in relation to what should be happening to the future of the industry, but here we have a clear example of the old Irish saying, "ag ligean a gcuid maidí le sruth". Sin atá dá dhéanamh ag an Aire agus ag an Rialtas. Tá siad ag ligean a gcuid maidí le sruth agus tá tionscal na hiascaireachta ag dul go tóin poill.
Fianna Fáil believe that the time has come for a new and positive approach to planning for the future and expansion of this industry, which should be second only to agriculture in Ireland. We suggest that immediate steps be taken to set up a proper research unit, that we have full involvement in exploratory fishing, that immediate steps be taken to set up proper marketing structures. The Minister referred to this, but I am not satisfied that what he mentioned in the House is what should be done in relation to this matter. I cannot accept that BIM have been doing what they should in this particular sector. We get glossy reports from them, as has been said by Deputy Begley and others, but facts and figures are there. I can go back to my own time as secretary of a fishing co-operative when we tried to establish local markets. When we asked BIM for help at that particular time in filleting and in helping to set up local markets we got very little assistance. The manager of that particular co-op can today come along with the same story. That is ten or 12 years later and the position has not improved. It is a sad reflection on BIM that they have not been doing more in this particular sector.
We believe that plans should be put in hand to have harbour and processing facilities provided to keep pace with the improved catches and fleet expansion. We suggest that in research funds be made available immediately to determine what our fishing stocks are. We cannot plan for the industry unless we have proper research facilities, unless we know exactly what stocks there are, how they can be saved, how they can be fished and taken out at any particular time. A proper research unit will be able to determine the amount of fish which can be taken out and the amount that can be conserved.
I mentioned this in the House before and I believe it is worth mentioning again — it is important that all of us take an example from what has been done by the people of Iceland in relation to research. They have seven or eight boats employed full-time. They have about 200 people involved in this important business of research and they determine the amount of any particular species that can be taken out by their fleet at any particular time. As a result of the research carried out by them they have succeeded in locating other stocks of fish that were not traditional to the Icelandic fishermen and in this way have helped to conserve the traditional type stocks. At the same time they have managed to provide employment for their fishermen at a time when they would not be involved in their traditional type fishing.
It is important for us to have boats involved in exploratory fishing. We have boats tied up at the present time and they are not being used. I believe BIM and the Department could use many of those boats to go out and explore our coastal area, find out what areas can be used for trawling, what areas can be used for other types of fishing, try to locate new stocks and so on. There does not seem to be any planning or any thought put into this area. It is an important one and the one which will determine the whole future of the industry.
I would like to mention some of the problems facing fishermen at the moment. This ties in with what I have been saying already. I know two fishermen at the moment who are fishing 65 foot boats. They concentrated entirely on fishing for herring. They did not find it possible, because of depressed markets and depressed stocks to make a decent living in herring fishing and they found it necessary to engage in trawling. They have now located bays about 40 miles from Achill where they are fishing with boats from Killybegs, Greencastle, Burtonport and with French and Spanish boats. They have to use a type of gear they were not accustomed to using, and in some of the grounds they are fishing they have to depend on markings they got from French fishermen. It is a terrible state of affairs that we have not charted and marked out fishing areas within our own 50 mile region where our fishermen who want to diversify and want to take up this type fishing can go and try to do something worthwhile for themselves.
The problems facing fishermen who have to diversify and to get into new gear is a serious one. One of those fishermen told me that getting the necessary gear, trawl boards, new types of net, wharfs and so on cost them in the region of £12,000. For a man already in serious trouble because of his income from herring this was a very big burden to face. The Department or BIM should have some kind of system where grants could be made available to a fisherman faced with that kind of situation when he has to change from one type of fishing to another, but this does not happen. As I mentioned already, such a fisherman did not get any assistance in relation to the fishing grounds and the change-over he had to make from herring fishing to trawling. In industry there is in-service training and programmes are made available to people to change their machinery or to new methods in their production lines, it is clear that this does not happen in the case of fishermen. It shows a lack of imagination and the general apathy which exists in relation to the thinking on this whole question of the fishing industry. This is not good enough and we cannot accept it any longer. It has been handled in a haphazard, listless way. Guidelines are not given and it is a hit and miss affair.
Marketing is a joke. Fishermen have no control or say in the prices they are getting for fish. I speak from experience and I can relate this to the co-operative in my constituency. When they put their fish on a lorry to send to Dublin or Fleetwood, where it is being sent at present, they do not know what price they are going to get. That cannot be tolerated much longer. At least when the farmer produces he has some indication of what he will get.
We must also plan for our inshore fishermen, those who depend on inshore waters. It is time for the fishermen in larger boats to fish with the foreigners and get away from scratching the rocks as they have been doing. By protecting the inshore fishermen we can protect our stocks and spawning grounds and in this way help to keep a vital industry going for much longer. We all accept that fishing is a hard, tough life, but it can be rewarding if properly approached. The time has come to fund the industry properly, to provide all the back-up facilities already mentioned and to have proper structures to run it efficiently. BIM should be restructured as a development board and given full responsibility for the expansion of the industry. There is too much fragmentation at present which leads to delays and apathy.
The European Regional Fund should be used to fund various operations. We have a determined and experienced group of fishermen who feel ignored and let down. Given the encouragement and financial assistance necessary, they can compete with the best. Let us now make a new start and rekindle the light left in the industry by doing something positive. An acre of sea can produce as much as an acre of land. Now that we have some semblance of a common fisheries policy, a serious and determined effort on the part of the Government can add greatly to our resources, provide many new jobs and revitalise our fishing towns and villages. We have not taken this industry as seriously as we should have. We must have new initiatives, be more forceful and thoughtful in our whole approach to the industry. Any money spent here by the Government in developing this natural resource will be repaid tenfold and will help to revitalise fishing. The Minister should be fully aware of what needs to be done in relation to the whole industry. I do not think that the board which the Minister of State mentioned will achieve a great deal. We still depend on the old methods, we work through BIM and they did not do enough in the marketing end. I do not want to knock the board, but I am not confident that they will achieve any great degree of success. Local markets can be developed more easily and perhaps the Minister would look at this. I do not see why we should be sending fish from Achill to Dublin and then find that it is being sold in local towns. I am grateful for having had this opportunity to speak on this matter and I hope there will be some positive thinking with regard to the future of the industry.
Mr. Coughlan
In the short time available I intend to concentrate on the problems experienced by fishermen in my constituency, especially in the premier fishing port of Killybegs. This port, unfortunately, depends entirely on its income from fishing. Any crisis which arises within the industry has an adverse effect on the whole Killybegs community. At present we are experiencing all these effects because of the critical situation in the industry.
The biggest problem is the repossession of boats because many skippers are unable to meet their commitments to Bord Iascaigh Mhara to whom they are making repayments. Arrears in repayments of fishermen on 31 December 1983 amounted to about £6.2 million. It was mentioned that this was caused mainly by people referred to as cowboys. I do not believe that all the men who are in financial difficulties at present can be classified as cowboys and there are many reasons why they are in this predicament. Circumstances make it impossible for them to repay their instalments. The present loan system will have to be restructured, otherwise these men will be out of business.
The cost of oil has increased by 114 per cent since 1980 while average fish prices have only gone up by 14 per cent in the same period. The cost of oil is the highest overhead which boats have and this astronomical increase is having further detrimental effects on their net incomes. There should be subsidisation for fishermen in this respect.
Many of the boats which were dependent on herring fishing have now become almost obsolete due to poor demand on the Continent. The general upswing in EEC herring landings and the high level of imports from Sweden and Norway have all contributed to low incomes. If fishermen are going to survive they have no option but to change over to white fishing. In order to do that they have to refurbish and restructure their boats at a high cost. With this high expenditure more grant aid should be made available for this type of conversion.
There is a great need and urgency to research the potential of the home market with regard to sales of fish. I understand that something in the region of £20 million worth of fish was imported last year. It must be patently obvious that we should be in a position here to substitute these imports as the raw material is readily available at home. More finance should be made available for such promotion.
The Minister of State mentioned trading with Nigeria and he said it was a poor thing to have all our eggs in one basket. However, at present it is our only market and is still our most important outlet for mackerel which is posing great problems for the industry. Since the military takeover in Nigeria food and fish imports have been given priority status but despite this fish exporters here have been unable to secure import licences. While the shorebased processors are doing their best and have continued to service other markets, business in Killybegs is slowly grinding to a halt. But for the fact that east Europeans are prepared to buy our fish at a very poor price our fishermen would be out of business completely. I know that efforts are being made to help with this matter but I stress that action must be taken to resolve the problem.
The money devoted to research of our fishing grounds is small. We are talking about £350,000 in an industry that earned £78 million last year. We are doing the industry a disservice and we are hindering its development. More money should be made available to help in the area of research. Many boat-owners are in financial difficulties and their boats are tied up. These people could be involved in this research work. It would create employment and in time it would generate more income. The potential is there and it should be tapped. I ask the Minister to make more money available to assist the industry in these difficult times.
Last year we had the problem of monofilament netting but this year there is another serious problem that nobody seems to be tackling: I refer to the problem we have with seals. Some conservationists may be anti-culling but, at the same time, the seals have devastated salmon stocks. This matter will have to be considered realistically. In Donegal Bay there are 200 or 300 seals. I hope the news is true that there will be a draft net extension nationwide, not just in County Wexford. That would be welcome but I think a few more weeks would have been accepted more graciously.
I am glad to have this opportunity to say a few brief words in relation to the fishing industry. Coming from a county noted for its fishing exploits, both sea and inland, I am very concerned about the continued lack of progress in the fishing industry. The attitude of the Government to the fishing industry is nothing short of disgraceful. Despite the best efforts of the fishermen and other interested bodies, they have allowed the industry to run into a state of decline. I believe that fishing, like agriculture, is one of our great natural resources. It should be taken by the scruff of the neck, overhauled and developed to ensure that its full potential is realised in the interests of the people of this country.
With the proper development of the fishing industry an extra 4,000 to 5,000 jobs could be created. The potential for job creation through the various spin-off industries that could be developed is enormous. In relation to sea fishing, one could say that the fleet has become more modernised and that fishermen are given a sound basic training through the help of BIM. However, we find that today many of the fleet owners are in serious financial difficulties and are unable to meet repayments on their loans. The Minister must consider this matter seriously. I contend it is not acceptable to encourage fishermen to purchase a more modern fleet and then find that the markets are not there. As a result, the fishermen, particularly because of high interest rates and high energy costs, find that their investment has become a millstone around their necks.
In conjunction with fleet development, the Minister must look to the development of a proper marketing strategy, with more research and more emphasis on creating a better home market and also broadening our export markets. There must be more emphasis on the non-traditional species of fish. Fish processing has tremendous scope for development and job creation. The Minister must ensure that this area is given the proper back-up support in relation to investment and grant-aid to companies already involved in the processing industry and also to other companies that may wish to set up fish processing plants.
Lett and Company in Wexford are employing 95 people and they have become a major success story in the development of the mussel industry. They hope to increase their share of the market this year and, in turn, this will mean more jobs. However, this industry in Wexford is now under a serious threat due to lack of landing facilities at Wexford harbour. Not one penny has been spent on landing facilities in the harbour in the past 30 years. At present the whole quay is in danger of collapse. In fact, half of the quay is unusable and the local fishermen are concerned that unless immediate temporary repairs are carried out they will have no landing facilities next year. Are the Government going to allow Lett and Company to go to the wall because of their failure to make funds available for the development of Wexford harbour? It seems that CIE were the body originally responsible for the maintenance of the quay but they have failed to honour their commitments. I suggest to the Minister that he take action against CIE or else ask the Department to take over responsibility of carrying out major repairs to Wexford harbour.
The Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy, referred to Kilmore Quay. Some development work has been carried out since he became Minister of State but we are asking that dredging work be carried out. There has been development work during the years on this quay by Fianna Fáil Governments. I ask the Minister of State and the Minister to arrange to have this dredging work carried out.
The whole area of salmon fishing and salmon conservation measures have become controversial in recent years. Illegal salmon fishing has become a very contentious issue and there is a widely held viewpoint that such type of fishing is acceptable in some parts of the country. The introduction of monofilament netting, particularly along the west coast, is causing havoc with salmon stocks in the eastern region. The use of these nets for salmon fishing is illegal and yet they are being used extensively on a 24-hour basis by fishermen in certain areas and the Minister continues to ignore it. At a recent meeting on conservation the Minister was informed by some of the fishermen that they were using illegal nets and he admitted that the present laws were not being enforced due to inadequate staff.
The Minister of State has said the draft net fishermen are happy with the present situation. In the past two weeks these fishermen in Wexford have sent a letter to the Minister asking for a fair crack of the whip. They stated that, because it takes the salmon longer to reach the east coast, they considered the season there should start six weeks later and end six weeks later, namely, 15 September, as was the tradition. It is quite obvious that the draft net fishermen in Wexford are not happy with the situation.
The finance made available to the Eastern Fisheries Board for the coming year is totally inadequate and it has caused grave concern to board members. Last year, for example, in the non-pay allocation area an amount of £65,000 was spent in providing transport for fishery officers carrying out their patrolling and protection duties. This year only £35,000 was allocated which means that officers will be on a three-day week. There has been no allocation of money for pollution officers and we now have the farcical situation of having pollution officers and laboratories but no equipment. This situation could only happen in Ireland. It shows that Government have no interest in the fishing industry.
The main function of the fishery officers is to combat poaching and pollution but, due to a lack of funds, the Eastern Fisheries Board will be unable to carry out their role as the protector of our rivers. The embargo on staff has also played havoc with the board's operations. Five years ago in Wexford we had six fishery officers, today we have three. Recently the inspector retired and, due to the one in three embargo, he cannot be replaced. The present position regarding Wicklow-Wexford is that we have three officers on half time without supervision covering the River Slaney.
The fact that so many Members where anxious to make a contribution to this debate is an indication of the importance of the industry to the economy. Almost 12,500 people are engaged in the industry. In fact, a higher percentage of our labour force are involved in the fishing industry here than in any other country in the EEC with the exception of Denmark. Our fishing industry has grown and developed in the last ten years and total fish exports in 1982 were in excess of £73 million. The fish industry here contributes about 1 per cent of GNP, an indication of its importance. Nevertheless, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that everything is in order. We are all aware that fleets have difficulties in meeting their expenses and costs. One of the major difficulties is the price of fuel, a matter that was referred to by previous speakers. I understand that the price of fuel to fishing vessels increased by 300 per cent between 1975 and 1982 and that during the same period the price fishermen got for their fish has only kept up with the increase in the CPI. I understand that it takes 50 per cent of the income of some of the owners of the boats to meet their fuel costs.
I am amazed that a golden opportunity was allowed slip some weeks ago to do something about this. At that time the oil companies decided to reduce the price of petrol to retailers and consumers but they ignored the fishermen. The companies were blinkered into looking into the matter from their own narrow point of view without considering the lot of our fishermen. Had our fishermen been granted a reduction of 4p or 5p per gallon on diesel it would have meant between £500,000 and £750,000 to the fishing industry, an indirect investment in that industry. I am not blaming the Government for that. The blame lies with the oil companies. One of them was trying to get ahead of the other. Esso were followed by Shell and they all forgot about the fishermen. If the price of petrol or oil is reduced again I hope the companies concerned will not forget the fishermen. At petrol stations between Donegal and Dublin customers are offered a glass, a knife or a goblet for £10 or £20 worth of petrol. If the companies can afford to give such items to customers why is it that they do not make concessions to fishermen?
The price of fuel and other incidental costs are only symptoms of the difficulties fishermen face. If we are serious about the industry and anxious to see it developed the time has come when the fishermen, the processors, the buyers, sellers and exporters will have to get together to work out a plan for the next four or five years putting forward definite targets that can be reached. This is an opportune time to prepare such a plan because we have negotiated successfully a Common Fisheries Policy. We have a definite framework in which to work. Emphasis should be placed on the processing end of the industry because 90 per cent of our processing is primary processing. If we want to increase the number of people employed in that area we must go in for more advanced processing. We should also consider marketing.
I heard Deputy Sheehan's eloquent plea on behalf of Schull pier and I should like to make a plea in connection with some of the landing facilities in Donegal south west, from Bun an Inbhear to Killybegs. I was disappointed with the wording in the motion before the House. It is negative and sets out to condemn the Government. We must be positive about the fishing industry and co-operate. I was pleased to hear Deputy Daly's positive contribution last night.
I had not intended saying anything complimentary about the Minister but I must compliment him for remaining in the House throughout the debate last night and tonight. I was disappointed that the Minister of State was in the House for a few minutes prior to his contribution and left the House when he had concluded. I was of the opinion that the Minister for Fisheries would be responsible for affairs in Europe and that his Minister of State would be responsible for the industry at home. It is not hard to understand why the industry is in its present state when the Minister of State will not wait in the House for the debate. He is interested only in his small pocket in Wexford, catching eels and repairing some small harbours. He has forgotten that as Minister of State he is responsible for the entire country and not that constituency only.
I wish the Minister of State had a little more interest in his constituency.
With my other colleagues I was delighted to get an opportunity to contribute to the debate. Many Members did not get an opportunity because of the time constraint. We all wish to condemn the Government for their failure to arrest the alarming deterioration of the fishing industry. I do not make any apology for adding my name to the motion before the House and those who suggest that the wording is not positive are not speaking on behalf of the fishermen.
I suggest that the industry, which includes producers, processors and others, was never in a more critical situation than it is today. However, the Government, the Minister and his Minister of State, have ignored this most serious problem and hope it will resolve itself.
What did Fianna Fáil do about the industry when they were in office?
Since the Government assumed office 15 months ago they have ignored the industry although they were made well aware of the problems facing it by Opposition Deputies and the organisations involved in the industry. This most important industry employs 12,000 people and is based on a renewable resource. It is of vital importance to the economy. Its contribution to our GNP is the second highest of any maritime country in the EEC but, unfortunately, it ranks lowest in the priorities of the Government.
It was treated as a hind teat by successive Fianna Fáil Governments.
It is necessary to refer to a period when too much emphasis was laid on increasing the total landings of fish. At that time the idea was to ensure maximum landings prior to agreement on a Common Fisheries Policy. The thinking at that time was that if there was an increase in the landings it was necessary to increase investment in the fleet and double the catch recommended under The Hague Agreement. The investment in fleets, particularly in vessels in the 60 foot to 85 foot region, contributed largely to the difficulties the industry is now in. The numerous 60 foot to 85 foot boats are not in a position to fish viably or profitably.
It appears to me that at a late stage of the negotiations for a Common Fisheries Policy BIM and the Department of Fisheries felt it was necessary to reduce investment in fishing boats. Therefore, we have had a reduction in the number of new boats in the past two or three years. When there was proper investment in new boats there were greater landings of fish. Unfortunately, fuel prices increased, accompanied by a fall in fish prices. This has affected the fleet's net income. It resulted in a reduction in loan repayments to BIM, and this was not the fault of the fishermen, or the "cowboys" as the Minister of State referred to them. The Minister should apologise to the House and to the fishermen whom he referred to as cowboys. If the remark had been heard at the time I believe the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would have asked the Minister to withdraw it.
The Deputy is deliberately misquoting what was said.
He said "cowboys".
That is twisting the facts. That is nothing new from that side. The Minister of State has nothing to apologise for.
I am getting under their skin but I will not be interrupted by any Minister or Deputy.
(Interruptions.)
I never interrupt them or anyone else. As I was saying, these difficulties resulted in a reduction in loan repayments, and now 80 per cent of the boats in the 40 foot to 85 foot range are in arrears of payments to BIM. Oil prices have been increased dramatically in the past ten years, from about £23 per tonne to the present £270 per tonne. In the same period prices of fish in real terms fell by about 15 per cent.
When the industry finds itself in this critical situation the Government continue to ignore the problems. I will suggest what action should be taken, because it is absolutely necessary. An example is the action taken by Fianna Fáil in 1981 when they provided £1.6 million to enable BIM to freeze all arrears for two years. It did not cure all of the ills but it prevented the total collapse which would have occurred otherwise. The Minister should take some corrective action, but on a much greater scale. It is scandalous that when petrol prices were reduced by 9p neither the Minister for Fisheries nor the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism made any plea on behalf of the fishermen to the oil companies. It is not too late, and I ask the Minister to make representations to the oil companies.
Joey Murrin is doing that.
He was before he joined the party. Short-term fire brigade action should be taken. Later, long-term solutions can be provided through the FEOGA fund. There is money available there for exploratory fishing development and the refurbishing of our fleet, including the scrapping of obsolete boats. We must try to get maximum benefits from these funds. As the Minister knows, our fishermen have special problems, and there is provision in the Treaty of Rome and The Hague Agreement to take cognisance of our special problem. We could restructure all loans to viable boats which are in arrears. These loans could be renegotiated so that there would not be a need to repossess vessels. We could then start afresh without the continuous threat of legal proceedings hanging over fishermen's heads. They could then concentrate fully on fishing, which could then become profitable.
Even obsolete boats could qualify under the scheme for scrapping them. They could be used for research, to identify new fishing grounds, plankton content of waters, temperature and other information which would be particularly useful if fed into a central station. We must strive for a better deal for mackerel and herring quotas and species of white fish. We must ensure that our quotas of horse mackerel and blue whiting will be realistic, because when these species come on-stream they will be of great benefit to the fishing industry. Quotas have not been set so far, but figures have become available to us which indicate that the Dutch have been given a quota for horse mackerel of 42,000 tonnes as against 100 tonnes for Ireland.
Completely incorrect.
I hope this is not indicative of the quotas we will be given when quotas are agreed on. The Minister must ensure that there will be research to identify the areas in which horse mackerel and blue whiting are available. Beforehand, an extensive programme of market research must be embarked on to ensure that when these fish come on-stream they will not be used for fishmeal. It was unfortunate to hear the Minister of State say tonight that it is difficult to sell finished products in Europe, that we have to go further afield to try to find markets. Fish worth £20 million, in their finished state, are being imported here. Therefore, we do not have to leave our shores to find a market. The Minister last night said that a marketing advisory committee are considering the position. I suggest that BIM should avail of the offices of CTT throughout the world. I do not cast aspersions on BIM but at the moment they have only one office, in Paris, outside their Dublin headquarters. I hope the advisory body will consider this.
The industry is in difficulty at the moment because of problems in Nigeria. There has been a delay in the issue of licences to importers there. This is causing great concern here. It has resulted in a drop in the intake of mackerel by processors for lack of holding space. The Minister should be concentrating on this instead of going off to Japan while the Minister of State has been talking about going to the eastern bloc. The Minister should get on his bike and the Minister of State should get on his plane——
Would the Deputy give me his Morris Minor?
If the Minister does not go to Nigeria he should send somebody there from this side of the House. When the subsidy was withdrawn the Minister said it would be made available in other forms. Where is the £25 per tonne which the Minister told us we would get in some other way?
May I have another 30 seconds to sum up? We have made a positive contribution to this debate. We have referred to the fishermen, their training, to harbours, marketing, processing, fleet development, aquaculture, inland fisheries and fisheries research.
What about salmon?
We will have a debate next week and I will refer to salmon. Contrast this with the approach and the contribution from the Government side of the House. Any impartial observer would have to agree that Fianna Fáil have shown the way forward, that we are the only alternative Government and that we would look after the interests of the fishermen. I challenge the Minister to debate with me in this House or in any other forum the problems of the salmon fishermen.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McCartin, Joe.
- McGahan, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael, (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J., (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett (Dún Laoghaire) and McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and V. Brady.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.