I beg to move: "That a sum not exceeding £28,575 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, to defray the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Fisheries." (A sum of £9,000 had already been voted on account.)
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - MINISTRY OF FISHERIES.
This being a new Ministry, and a new Department, perhaps the Minister would consider it advisable to follow the precedent set by the Postmaster-General a few days ago—that is, to give the Dáil a brief statement about the work the Ministry has been doing, and as regards what it proposes to do. This is a new Ministry, and if that were done it might obviate the necessity of asking question or offering criticisms. I think it would be a good idea if the Minister were to tell us briefly what his plans are for the working of this Ministry.
I might say, in putting forward a statement on this Estimate the only apology to be made is chiefly for the smallness of the amount, but when we consider the actual state of the finances of the country, referred to so often here, we have to bow to the inevitable and be satisfied with a lesser amount than we originally asked for. With regard to the work, as this is a new Ministry the first thing we had to do was to get together a staff. We had, more or less, to coalesce the Fisheries' staffs of the Congested Districts Board and of the Department of Agriculture—I mean the staffs of these two Departments—that were dealing with Fisheries' services before. Our chief work has been to carry on the services as they were being carried on before by them. These involve the granting of loans to fishermen for gear, etc., and the general work that was done by these departments formerly. Shortly after the Ministry was formed I decided to call together a committee to deal with Sea Fisheries and another to deal with Inland Fisheries. The Committee on Sea Fisheries met and had some sittings. They discussed two schemes put before them from the Ministry. One was for the development of inland markets, and the other for the development of foreign markets. On the whole, they approved of the schemes as they were put before them, and we have now got permission from the Ministry of Finance to go on with these. I might mention that the figure in the Vote, as you will see from the note at the end, is not the total amount available for Fishery development. There is a sum of £25,000 to come from the funds of the Congested Districts Board, and a sum of £17,150 to come from the funds of the Department of Agriculture. That makes a total of £42,650 which, in addition to the £9,000 specified in the Estimate, makes available a sum of £51,650 for development as distinct from the ordinary staffing, salaries, wages, etc. We found it necessary, owing to the dislocation of the railway services this year in order to enable the mackerel fishing to be availed of off the coast of Cork, to supply transit from there to the markets in Wales. This, in actual effect, was not a great success, because the whole mackerel fishing this year, through weather circumstances, was a failure; but, at any rate, it was something that had to be done, because the outstanding loans and arrears, etc., that were due to both departments were such that if the men were not able to go to the fishing grounds we had no chance of getting back that money.
It may have been that in this particular case, in the case of mackerel fishing it was actually throwing good money after bad. At any rate, the experiment had to be made. The fishermen themselves agree that we have done what we could, that it was nobody's fault except the fault of nature.
Everybody knows that the fishing industry at the moment in Ireland is at its lowest ebb. The fishing industry in every country is, in fact, practically at its lowest ebb. There is, at least, a very great slump. That is due to many causes, the chief of which is the depression in the markets and the exchanges in Central Europe. The Irish fishing industry, in addition, has been hit owing to the circumstances that have prevailed here for a few years. Our idea has been not to break forward into new departures owing to the existing circumstances until we have brought back the existing industry to its former condition. I felt—and my advisers felt—that there would be no use in adopting schemes which might be merely a "flash in the pan" and then collapse through want of finance. What we have set before ourselves, in other words, has been to revive the fishing industry as it was and go forward from that.
I would like to ask the Minister if he is aware of the failure of the cod, skate and plaice fishing around the East and South-East coast, and what investigations he has made into the matter. The men have gone out to fish time after time without any results. I would like the Minister to inquire into this matter, and see what is the cause of the failure. I would also like to ask him what steps he has taken to have proper methods of fishing taught. These methods could be taught even in the Technical Schools, as also proper methods of net-making and the making of all classes of fishing gear. The Minister might also tell us when he intends to have barometers and weather glasses installed at all the fishing stations. Heretofore these glasses were kept by the coastguards, and I would like to see them installed now at the fishing stations. At present they are conspicious by their absence. Would the Minister also state what are the steps necessary to be taken by fishermen to obtain boats and fishing gear. I would also like to know what has resulted from the investigations recently held re the three-mile limit, or further out, so as to enable the small boats engaged on the inshore fisheries to earn a living against the steam trawlers—often foreign—that invade our waters to the detriment of the fishermen of all classes.
The statement of the Minister for Fisheries would make one almost feel—if one already did not feel it—that it was rather premature to set up a separate Ministry of Fisheries. I am inclined to think that that will be found to be the fact for some years to come, until we are in a position to spend very considerable sums in the work of development in what is, in fact, a reorganisation of the industry and a refurnishing of the industry with new types of boats, or adapting boats for new classes of fishing. The statement which the Minister has made with regard to the experiment of sending mackerel from Baltimore to Milford is interesting. He says the fishermen who are primarily interested felt that all had been done that could be done. I wonder does the Minister claim that the method adopted in the transport of mackerel was approved of by the fishermen and by others technically competent to judge of the wisdom of that? As I am informed, a vessel was chartered for the purpose of sending mackerel from Baltimore to Milford, and to send them without ice and in bulk; to take them out of the fishing-boats, transfer them to the carrier, and to send them in bulk to Milford to be rehandled again, put into boxes, or sold there without having had the protection that boxes give in transport and handling. It seems to me that that was an experiment that invited failure. There should have been some method of carrying, once they had been taken out of the fishing boats, by which the weight of the fish itself would not destroy the fish. Everybody knows that is the case, particularly with mackerel. The failure that the Minister admits was made certain by the fact that there was no fish. I would like the Dáil to remember, when so many people are talking about the failure of fishing, that certainly in the case of mackerel very often the cause of the failure is not the failure of the fishermen, but a natural phenomenon. That is not going to be cured by any amount of expenditure or any amount of organisation. The scientists who have studied this question have not yet satisfied themselves as to the changes and movements of mackerel and herring, so that it is not wise to build up a system on the assumption that the movements of these fish are certain and can be calculated. I think the Minister would be well advised if his thoughts would run rather in the direction of encouraging line fishing and trawling as a ready alternative to drift-net fishing. There is more money to be made in the long run by fishermen out of trawl fishing or line fishing, while if boats were equipped and ready to use drift nets for mackerel or herring when they show themselves, the harvest would be assured. There is very much more certainty of a regular, or somewhat regular, income if alternative processes are made available. The fact of the existence and of the development within the last 20 years of very large fleets of very powerful steam trawlers, and of less powerful, but not less effective, motor trawlers, is a factor that Irish fishermen, especially on the West coast, have to count as detrimental to them. Until we are able to develop a much greater consumption of fish in this country that handicap is going to be almost insuperable. I think it would be found in practice, and perhaps the Minister will agree to this, that for the English market the steam carrier is going to be used for direct shipment rather than any rail transit. The development of the fishing on the West coast of Ireland for the English market is going to be the development of the British or the French fishing-boat just as well as the development of the Irish fishing-boat. For the local market and for inshore fishing there may be a great deal done. I think the Minister will find that for the development, as so many people speak of it, of the great fishing industry, there is going to be a great deal of disappointment, and that disappointment will be still greater if there is not a steady increase in the consumption in Ireland. I suppose this country is about the worst of all the fish-eating countries in Europe. I am inclined to think that any development of inshore fishing, which is probably going to be the most beneficial to the half-fisherman half-farmer, will probably be the most beneficial for a large section of the community, at any rate, and that fishing will be more valuable with every increase in the demand for fish from within this country. I think that along with any expenditure in the development of equipment there should be a concurrent expenditure in the development of demand and methods of distribution within the country. In the development of methods of distribution, and—perhaps with the assistance of the Minister for Education or whoever is in charge of technical instruction in the future— in an improvement in the method of treating fish for the table, lie, I think, the secret of any improvement in the demand for fish, any improvement in the price of fish for the fisherman, and any improvement in the success of the industry around these coasts. Irish fishermen for the last 30 years have been trained to depend on mackerel and herring—fresh mackerel for the English market and cured mackerel for the American market. The American market is a very uncertain quantity, and it will be less certain still in the future. The herring market is almost illimitable, provided Eastern Europe is opened up. For what I call the finer qualities of fish there is very little market indeed in this country. There is, no doubt, a great demand in England, but with that great demand there is a tremendous supply, brought to the place of consumption in about one-third of the time that the Irish fishermen on the West coast are able to accomplish it. That is the difficulty in the development of Irish fisheries, and it would not be any harm, perhaps, for a cold douche to be applied to the very many optimistic thoughts there are about the Irish fishing industry. The problem is complicated, and not at all as easy as newspaper writers would have us believe. It is not simply a case of equipping a boat going out and throwing the net overboard and bringing in fish. You might have fleets upon fleets of vessels, fishing season after season, with the most accomplished fishermen, and get no fish. As I am reminded, unless you have the means for dispersal of the fish you have caught and arrangements for curing the fish you have caught, you might as well not have caught them.
I suppose that industry is the greatest gamble in nature. It is a gamble from the moment a fisherman takes to the boat until the final moment when the consumer buys the fish, and there are gentlemen in the building who can confirm that. I would again urge that the attention of the Ministry in this matter should be devoted largely to the disposal of fish within the country, to the encouragement of the methods of marketing fish, and to the encouragement of consumption. I believe that if you can by this means improve the demand for consumption within the country, you will be doing the best work in encouraging the industry as a whole.
Mr. DOYLE
Although the amount set out for the improvement of fisheries is not very large, I think it is one of the costliest Departments within the whole reach of the Estimates. The administrative charges seem to be very near three-fourths of the total expenditure. In those Estimates, if we read them aright, £3,000 are allowed for the development of fisheries and £6,000 for a fishery cruiser. That is the only expenditure. I can see in this Estimate that benefits the public at large. The remainder, £22,525, seems to go all in administration. I think that is totally out of place—for the administration of £31,000 it costs £22,000. I think it is a very costly Department.
I do not know very much about this fishing industry, but I would like to call the Minister's attention to one thing which might, perhaps, help to save the industry—that is, as far as it affects the immediate coastline. I do not propose going too deeply into the matter, but there is a system in vogue around the coast of ring-net fishing, and I believe that it is the most destructive form of fishing in the bays around, as far as the spawning beds are concerned, that it is possible to get. I believe people come in, and they are well equipped, and they simply scoop the bay in a few evenings and then get clear away. It is an illegal form of fishing; it is an illegal net. Those people have done that for the last few years when there was no protection, and it leaves the native fishermen in such a position that they go out night after night and day after day, and they come in with next to nothing. I think the Minister should devote his attention to stopping that practice in the bays, especially on the East coast. He would be doing a very good thing, and would perhaps be laying the foundation for allowing the fish to come to maturity. I would ask him to see that his Department's attention will be devoted to that part of the work.
With regard to Deputy Doyle's point, he apparently overlooked the fact that, in addition to the money provided, there was a sum of £40,650 given respectively by the C.D. Board and the D.A.T.I. for fishery developments.
Mr. DOYLE
The amount is not shown in the Estimates; it is not specified.
At the time the Estimate was printed the amount was not available. Deputy O'Callaghan asked me to explain the failure of the cod, hake, and plaice fishing in the East coast. The shortage in plaice, I am advised, is universal. Cod and hake are not fished for because line fishing is not adequately followed. There is provision in the detailed Estimates for vocational instruction, including net-making and fishing. There is a sum of £5,050 under the head of vocational instruction.
With regard to weather glasses, barometers were issued and are still on the coast. If you give me particulars of any case where there is a shortage, we can see about that. Loans are issued, just as they were always issued, on application, and with sufficient security, for the provision of boats and fishery gear. With regard to the inquiry recently held about the three-mile limit, the report of the Inspector is not yet ready. I entirely agree with Deputy Johnson that the thing to be looked forward to is to encourage the people of the country to eat more fish. That is actually part of the inland market scheme—the development of our inland markets. We are making provision for a scheme of propaganda to encourage the eating of fish. This is the lowest fish-eating country in the world, with only an average of 13 lbs. per head of the population. We are also making provision in the scheme for instruction in the method of cooking, and we are trying to get shops in certain towns as a start-off to display fish in a matter that would induce the public to buy it. With regard to line fishing and trawling, that is being encouraged. But it is found that fishermen themselves prefer drift-net fishing. The other is less speculative, if any fishing can be said to be other than speculative.
(An Ceann Comhairle at this stage resumed the Chair.)
Most of the boats on the Western coast have trawling nets as well as drift nets. The owners being half farmers and half fishermen, wait for the shoals to come along. With regard to the Baltimore scheme Deputy Johnson said that the bulk method was the chief or at any rate one of the chief causes of failure. Now, the way that the fish was actually consigned was not in bulk, as Deputy Johnson appeared to understand it. The fish was laid on shelves in very even layers, and their own weight could not have destroyed them. They were iced. We had an opinion, and it was a very sound one to follow in adopting that method. We were also guided by the fact that it would be impossible, in the event of large captures, to utilise the scheme of transport by these trawlers if we had reverted to large boxes. In calculating the loss we also knew, if we had gone to the expense of buying the boxes, that our losses would have been considerably greater. With regard to the point raised by Deputy Hughes, I have to say that ring nets are not illegal, and are used comparatively freely all over the coast. Restrictions on this particular type of net have been asked for frequently, and investigations are being held this week in regard to this matter. I think that covers most of the points raised by the Deputies.
I would like to raise another question which is not quite on the same plane, I was going to say in the same boat, as the last one. It is with regard to the fishery cruiser. I understand that this cruiser is not now in commission. Can the Minister tell us what is the estimated time during which it will be in repair? Further, can he say whether in the course of the examination it has been found that there were unforeseen defects, that new repairs are required to this vessel which were not contemplated when the original decision was taken for overhauling; whether those defects were due to the services rendered for the Fisheries Department or for any other Department? If he can say what was responsible for those defects which were not previously counted upon for repairs?
Before the Minister replies I would ask him to make inquiries into the three-mile limit at rivers owned by landlords. I believe that was granted to the landlords about 86 years ago, and what was the reason for it? Now, I will give you a case in point. A fisherman who pays a licence to your Board is not allowed to fish within those limits; that is, a half mile both ways, north and south, as the case may be, and seawards. Now, the landlord of that place can sell his rights to these fishermen for £40. It cannot be for the protection of the salmon. It must be for some ulterior motive, and I would like you to inquire into that.
First of all, the original time specified in the tender for the repair of the "Helga" was 18 days. While it was undergoing overhauling it was found that, when the vessel was opened up, heavier repairs were required. These defects could not be revealed until the vessel was stripped in dry dock. The vessel will be ready in a few weeks. What service it was which necessitated these repairs it is hard to say. The defect was due possibly to an injury while the Defence Department had the ship, but no proof of that can be brought forward. Whether these defects have been long in existence it is hard to say. They were only discovered when the ship was opened up. Deputy O'Callaghan has raised a point that is really a matter of Fishery Laws, and which would require a re-codifying before they will be interfered with. It will have to go before the Law Department some day. At any rate as the law stands we have no power in the matter.
Can you not introduce a Bill to amend that? These laws are 86 years old, and they were passed by a crowd—you know what that crowd were.
That will be a matter for the Dáil.
You are Minister for Fisheries, and you should protect the fishermen.
The Minister is not aware of how the damage occurred. I suggest it might be worth while for his Department, which will have to pay for this extra damage, to make some inquiries as to the course of events round the Kerry coast when the vessel was run ashore two or three times, and certain people got into trouble because of the fault of the man in charge. When the Minister points out that several more weeks, after the eighteen days specified in the original contract, will be required to get the vessel into repair, and that it is on the overhauling that these defects were noted, we get, I think, some clue to the manner, at least to the reason, why one firm was able to tender for this work while another firm was not able to tender at a figure anything like the same sum. Extras count very greatly indeed amongst contractors for ship repairs, and if one firm is in a position to hear that there will be a great field for extras it is a great temptation for that firm, which knows of the probability of extras, to cut down the price for the nominal repairs in the sure and certain hope that there will be plenty of recoupment to be made out of the extras.
What Vote is going to pay for the repairs to the "Helga"? It is an interesting question, and I would like to get it settled. Will it be the Ministry of Industry and Commerce or will it be the Ministry of Fisheries?
Presumably the Ministry of Fisheries. We have no proof on which we can base a claim against the Ministry of Defence.
The repairs to the "Helga" were normal overhauling. This contract was given for normal overhauling. After having been out in service for an extra time it was found necessary to overhaul the ship, and certain specifications were no doubt sent to the various firms capable of doing this work. It was known to more than one person, it was known to quite a number of people, that the keel of the "Helga" required considerable repairing. It was known that there was a good deal of damage done to the "Helga," but this damage, which, as I say, was known to several people, was not tendered for. I suggest that one is justified in thinking that a quotation, or tender, for overhauling in one port which is 100 per cent. less on the same rates of wages, or near about the same rate of wages, as the tenders for the same work in another port can be justified on the assumption that the low-tender firm knew that there was a great deal of overhauling to be done besides that tendered for, and that once the ship got into the yard it was not likely to be removed. When we learn that 18 days were promised, and that the contract, which was something less than £1,000, is now likely to be increased by several thousand pounds, it suggests the necessity for some examination into this business. I think, forgive the pun, there is something fishy about it. One could never understand how one firm could make an estimate which was lower in its totality than the item for wages in another firm, that material would be nearly as much in one firm which ought to be just as well able to provide material as another, as the total of the tender of the successful firm. The very huge difference in the tenders ought, I submit, to have made the Ministry exceedingly cautious and doubtful before they sent away a ship of this kind to any firm outside the Saorstát under these conditions. When we now have the sequel that three or four times the amount of work had to be done than was tendered for, and once the ship was opened up she could not be removed until the whole work was completed, and what was lost on the original tender could be made up out of extras, the explanation can be readily understood. While, I suppose, the damage is done, it ought to make Departments even more cautious and more careful than they have been, and to remember that things are not always what they seem. Cheapness is not only low prices. I think the mystery of the "Helga" has still to be solved, but I think we are on the way to solving it.
I was not aware until some few minutes ago that the question of the "Helga," and of a contract being given to a Belfast shipbuilding firm could be discussed now. I am not going to make any charges against anyone or be disrespectful to anyone, but I suggest to the Minister it is very desirable he should inquire into the relationships of the individual responsible for the "Helga" with the shipbuilding firm to which the contract of the "Helga" has been given. I am one of those who believe that the Ulster question can only be settled, in the long run, by a policy of economic pressure. Many things might have been taken into consideration before that ship was sent out. It is not right to send revenue of this State to another State which denies people a living simply because they differ from them in many respects. The question of wages cannot be a serious consideration in the contract price, because wages in Cork are £3 9s. 0d. and in Belfast £2 10s. 0d. to £2 15s. 0d., and the difference, I am informed, is less in Haulbowline.
The wages for a trained mechanic in Haulbowline is something like £2 15s. 0d.
That justifies the argument I have just been trying to get into the mind of the Minister—that is, that the question of the wages of the worker is not the real issue in this particular case. It is very hard to think that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of shipyard workers were thrown out of the shipyards in Belfast and dumped in upon the charity and friendship of the people of the Saorstát, and are walking about the different streets of the Saorstát, and to find that a ship the property of the Government has to be sent to the yards of the people who carried out the policy of pogrom for the last few years. I would ask the Minister who is responsible to get his hand tight upon the person responsible, so that the act will not be repeated without very good reason. It is not the question of £900 that is involved, but simply a question of policy in connection with the persons responsible for this pogrom. I would not blame the Government if they sent this contract across to Newcastle, Liverpool, or Hamburg, because we know that wherever Irishmen went outside of Belfast shipyards, they were able to get a day's work without being asked what their religion was. I do blame them for sending money collected from the people in this State to be paid to the people in Belfast who will not allow others a living unless they profess their faith in the policy they are carrying out. I think that one might go a long way in discussing a matter of this kind. It is only a question of drawing the attention of the Ministry to it now to see that nothing, in our time at any rate, will happen like that again, unless there is some very good reason—a better reason than the one previously put up by the Minister responsible.
I merely wish to say that we have statements on both sides—the statement of the Minister for Fisheries that when the "Helga" went into Belfast it was discovered then, and only then, that certain other repairs were necessary; and we have Deputy Davin's statement now. In view of that, I think it is up to the Minister responsible, or to the Government, to have an inquiry into the whole matter of the "Helga" going to Belfast. I have no particular enmity against Belfast people more than any other people, but here we have it stated openly that either the Board of Trade or the assessors or underwriters asked the Haulbowline people, or the Furness, Whitty people, or the Belfast people to quote for specific damage to the "Helga" and other ships, and they quoted for such, and when this vessel goes into Belfast it is then found, and only then, in spite of all the experts who examined it before that and asked people to quote specifically, that there are other damages to the ship. We must only assume that the Belfast people were warned beforehand that there were certain other damages to this ship. I think the whole case is there for inquiry.
I would ask the Minister for Fisheries to make a statement as to what work the patrol service is doing while the "Helga" is laid up, and I would also ask the Press to make it known that, although the "Helga" is laid up, the Irish fishing grounds are not open to every foreign poacher in the world.
The Ministry of Defence assured me several weeks ago, and they have proved that they have carried out their promise, that patrol boats would be specially told off and that fisheries protection would be one of their principal duties.
Question put and agreed to.
Now will the Minister promise to make further inquiries into the "Helga"?
I had not heard until now, or the last day we were discussing it, that there was any other damage than what was tendered for in the case of the "Helga," and I will make inquiries. The facts are that several firms tendered. It was open to several firms to find out what damage had been done and to see what advantage would be derived by extra work. I suppose that if the Belfast firm were to get thousands for doing this work, other firms would probably want millions on the very same conditions.
In Belfast they may be in a better position to know what was required.
That is the first time I heard that suggestion, and I will inquire into it. I am not very well satisfied that it is the case, but it may be. However, I will inquire into it.
Is it proposed to continue the Estimates?
No.