We will now deal with inshore fishing. This is to help the development of the fishing industry and from that point of view it is very relevant to our circumstances. The main change proposed is that assistance will now be available from FEOGA for the fishing industry. Up to now if people qualified for grants from FEOGA they did so under general provisions but now if there is a development scheme the Commission will be able to make assistance available from FEOGA.

It is very welcome. It is in line with the scheme we have been operating domestically since 1962-63.

The important point about this is that where previously any money from FEOGA for the fishing industry came out of the general fund, this is to be a specially allocated part of the fund. It caused considerable difficulty in the past where money was not available because of demands on the FEOGA fund.

The provisions speak for themselves. I do not think that anybody will be interested in the cessation provision.

It is very negative.

We are more interested in hearing about subsidies for boats and for research and retraining. If you turn to the end of the report you will see that we have on page 4 some suggestions which we would like to make. While we welcome the proposed Regulations in general, there are some amendments which we would like to see made. You will note that applications for aid must be submitted to the Commission before 1st July of each year and the Commission will be allowed until the 30th June of the following year to reach a decision. We want to suggest that is far too long. Anybody who would be looking for this assistance would almost certainly have to have started their preparations and got their quotations before the 1st of July. By the following 30th June those estimates and quotations could be very much out of date. One suggestion which we would like to have made is that the Commission should make up their mind more promptly on applications.

This has been one of the main complaints to date of the fishing industry.

It is very important. Indeed, it applies across the board to all FEOGA grant applications. The delays are unwarranted.

With regard to paragraph 3 on page 2, the project relating to plant and equipment must be carried out by persons who have been fishing for five years in vessels having a waterline length of less than 24 metres. Is there any provision where there can be any leeway as far as the length is concerned?

On page 4 it states:

Almost all of the vessels currently operating in the Irish fishing fleet have a waterline length of less than 24 metres which would enable the bulk of the Irish sea-fishing industry to qualify for the restructuring grants proposed. No upper limit is to be set, however, for replacement boats which are grant-aided under the proposal.

We have an application somewhere for slightly less than 24 metres that is meeting with some difficulty. I think that this would be a pity because a fishing boat of that size costs quite a considerable amount of money. When people order boats or design them, I do not know what are the guiding factors for the length. I know of one application for FEOGA assistance where the boat was only a few metres in excess of 24 metres and the owner stands to lose a substantial grant.

You mean that you are aware of such an application where the boat is to be replaced?

It is hardly a case of replacing the boat. The fisherman is quite young; he is in his mid-twenties.

If it is a new boat it does not matter under the new provisions. The replacement can be any length under the new proposals.

If he is a young man he would not have a replacement.

Is this his first boat?

I should imagine it must be the first one.

He is one of the few because we understand that most cases, or all of them, are within the 24 metres. This must be the one exception. The boat was only two metres outside the length?

As I have no great experience of the sea I do not know what prompts a person who orders a boat to fix on any particular length. When a person is prepared to have a stake in the industry to the tune of almost £500,000, how can we help him to qualify for the grant? From my knowledge of the Community all regulations seem to have a certain amount of flexibility.

This proposal envisages replacements. It is a re-structuring grant and the existing boat must be 24 metres or less but there is no limit on the replacement boat. The application to which Deputy McDonald was referring to was probably under the existing scheme.

Yes. When do the new Regulations come into force?

They were supposed to come in on 1st July but they are with a group of experts still.

It will be some time this year.

It seems to me extraordinary that an Irish national can be disqualified from getting a grant because of six or seven feet in the length of a boat, whereas other state's Regulations do not count for that much. I think that we will have to take a stronger line on this. By all means all people should endeavour to conform but we will have to consider this matter.

This scheme will only apply to people who are fishing, who have boats and who want to replace them.

It is to improve the catching power of existing fishermen who have limited catching power in their existing boats.

Nobody has yet made an application under this scheme because it has not yet come into force. It seems to me that it would be highly undesirable from an Irish point of view that grants should be made available for these large fishing boats which, in general, other countries have but we do not. I would say it suits us very much to have them limited to smaller boats.

The position is that of all the fishing nations in the EEC we are the only ones who are developing in this area. All the others are drawing back. We are in a unique position and we stand to gain on this.

If we achieve a national 50-mile limit, we have not at present the capacity to reap a good harvest from that. Surely it is in the national interest to facilitate every individual fisherman?

The general impetus of this proposal, if it is adopted, will be to persuade Irish fishermen to get rid of their smaller boats and get larger ones.

I accept that. There is a fisherman in Killybegs aged about 25 or 26 years who has a boat and under the existing Regulations it is about two metres too long. He cannot get a grant. The grant is worth about 25 per cent of almost £500,000.

He must be applying under the existing FEOGA provisions.

This is a proposed new scheme.

As I understand it, Deputy McDonald's friend has not got a boat at the present.

He has a boat that is too big.

He wants a grant for the boat. That is something the Deputy will have to take up with the Commission in his individual capacity as a Member of the European Parliament in so far as it is an individual application under existing schemes. Here we are concerned with the proposed new scheme.

The report of the Joint Committee rightly think this is an important scheme for Ireland because of the under-developed nature of our fishing industry but on page 3 of the review of the Joint Committee it seems to me that our approach is somewhat weaker. It says :

The Joint Committee has been informed by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries that no difficulty would be presented for this country in meeting the requirement to submit to the Commission a development programme within which projects would be forwarded for aid.

The Joint Committee should emphasise the necessity of getting in very early to apply under the various heads which are set out for planned expenditure. On the same page there is a breakdown of planned expenditure over a five-year period as follows:

Surely the Department should be actively getting in under the various categories?

That statement is quite valid in so far as it refers only to replacement of new boats under the capital provisions. The Senator is suggesting that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries should see to it that they are in a position to avail of these other headings. Is that the Senator's point?

Yes. The Committee should emphasise the importance of this proposed Regulation for the Irish fishing industry and we should be reacting very positively to it.

It is an imaginative proposal.

Senator Robinson has a point. The 25 per cent grant which will now be available from FEOGA will only be available to persons who are participating in a development scheme. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries assure us that they will have no problem providing such development schemes so that individual boat-owners will be able to qualify for the 25 per cent grant. Senator Robinson's point, if I understand her correctly, is that there are other headings here. We are not interested in headings B and C. There are D, E and F.

Presumably many of these would form part of the development scheme.

We want to suggest to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries that they be alert to the possibility of availing of schemes under D, E and F as well as A.

We refer to these in the paragraph at the end of page 3 and on page 4. We refer to the construction of shore installations for installations for processing and marine fish-farming. At the foot of page 3 the paragraph sets out our interest in the matter. We state that the aspect of the proposal of main interest to Ireland is the suggested provision of a grant of up to 25 per cent from FEOGA for the purchase of fishing vessels and the construction of shore installations for processing and marine fish-farming. These are the items under C, D and E.

No. I suggest they are mainly under A.

I would have thought that the construction of shore installations would clearly come under E and marine fish-farming must be under D.

The important thing here is the separate allocation to fisheries. That is the key to this. It has had to compete with agricutural produce up to now.

Since there is a separate allocation and separate amounts within the categories we must have development plans to match.

Paragraphs 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

We can add a sentence at the end of paragraph 6 to the effect that the Joint Committee urges the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to proceed as quickly as possible with the preparation of suitable development programmes.

That is more positive.

On the point that we proceed to prepare development programmes, there are two very small points. The first is that what has been spent on shellfish breeding and mari-culture in general has been spent by the universities. The debate within the universities at the moment is whether such research results should be made available here under a co-operative structure or whether they should be available under a market structure which might come into being. As a result we might have to harmonise such practice at Community level. On this, the feelings of the fishermen's organisations are perfectly clear. They feel that we should not merely speak about a development programme and the provision of an adequate case for such a programme but that in our interests and because of the links with the co-operative movement, we should express something about this.

There is such a paragraph on page 5.

I think that covers the Senator's point.

If and when there is agreement on an extended national exclusive fishing limit—it is quite possible that agreement will be reached on a national 50-mile limit—this will give tremendous scope to fishermen. Could we in any way rearrange our departmental organisation? Perhaps we could have a rearrangement of ministerial responsibility to have the development of both the fishery and perhaps the regional policy areas brought under one portfolio to strengthen and expedite the development?

Does the Deputy not think that it would be better for him to bring this up at a Fine Gael Party meeting rather than at a committee meeting? It is outside our scope.

Do we know how much delay there may be on this Regulation?

It should be done before the end of the year.

It is hoped to have it in operation before the end of the year.

Paragraph 6 amended by the addition of " The Joint Committee urges that Department to proceed as quickly as possible with the preparation of a suitable development programme " to the first sub-paragraph.

Paragraph 6, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraph 7 agreed to.

Is the draft report, as amended, agreed to.

Draft Report, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered : To report accordingly.