Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 May 1928

Vol. 23 No. 10

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE No. 61.—FISHERIES.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £33,202 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Iascaigh agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na hOifige sin.

That a sum not exceeding £33,202 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, 1929, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Minister for Fisheries, and of certain services administered by that Office.

The Estimates for the Department of Fisheries follow in the main the Estimates for previous years. There is, in fact, a reduction of £3,104 in the net amount asked for this year as compared with 1927-28. Under sub-head A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is shown an increase of £861 as against last year. That is due to the charge for the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary, which has been placed on this sub-head for the first time. The amount required for fishery development—sub-head E—is less by £3,155 than the sum voted last year for this service. In the details of this sub-head, which will be found on page 247, it will be seen that the sum for sea fishery development is £19,200, as against £20,500 last year. The reduction in that figure is mainly due to the transfer of the charge of £1,000 which this Department used to pay as a subsidy for the Aran steamer from this Department to the Department of Industry and Commerce, which is now responsible for it.

It will be observed in the details that a sum of £1,100 is included in this portion of the Estimates for the organisation of fishermen. That is a new item in our Estimates. I have already stated in the House, recently, my position regarding the Fishermen's Association, which body it is proposed would undertake work of organisation. The conditions on which I am prepared to make a grant for the carrying out of this work have not so far been accepted by that body.

A further reduction in development comes in under the head of inland fisheries. There is a reduction of £1,855 on last year's figure there and this reduction is due to the operation of the Fisheries Act, 1925. Most Deputies are familiar with the position, namely, that the rates on valued fisheries now go to the Board of Conservators for fishery protection instead of to the county councils, as formerly. Therefore, the State is not under such necessity to help the Boards of Conservators as it was before the passing of the Act. There are, however, some Boards of Conservators still that have public fisheries to conserve, that have to get State subventions to help them, but the Vote is reduced as a result of the application of the 1925 Fisheries Act, by £1,855. Less is being asked for also this year in connection with State hatcheries, as the three State hatcheries in operation are now able to meet the demands for ova and fry. We distributed nearly six and a half millions of ova and fry from these hatcheries last year. In addition we give small subventions to local hatcheries, to anglers' associations, and people of that kind hatching out for themselves.

Under sub-head F—Rural Industries —work carried on chiefly in the Gaeltacht, a reduction of £2,900 is shown. This reduction is principally due to the fact that we will not require so much raw material because of the falling off in trade due chiefly to the English tax on artificial silk work. Because of that particular tax and because of other reasons which have tended towards reducing the efficacy of these industries, we must concentrate on developing, as far as possible, the home market for the products of those industrial schools, and steps are being taken, as I mentioned in the Gaeltacht debate, to organise a central depôt in Dublin, and when that is developed it will be necessary, probably towards the end of the year, to come to the Dáil for a Supplementary Estimate under that head.

In connection with rural industries I might also repeat what I said in the Gaeltacht debate. We have made certain propositions with regard to the revival of the homespun industry generally, but devoting our attention principally to Donegal at the moment, because there you have the remains of the industry that existed. You have still weavers who have not lost the craft completely, and we think it is the most hopeful place to start out to develop the industry again in the country. These proposals include the setting up of a carding and dyeing factory in Donegal, and a scheme of State inspection and the stamping of genuine handwoven homespun cloth. These have been under the consideration of the Department of Finance for some time, and when they receive the sanction of the Minister for Finance, as I presume they will, it will mean also coming forward for a Supplementary Vote for that particular scheme.

Coming on to fishery protection, the amount required to run the single patrol vessel we have is reduced this year from £9,500 to £8,000. That reduction is principally due to the fact that the cost of our coal supplies can now be forecasted more accurately than previously. At the same time it is quite possible, owing to the vessel now becoming rather old, that heavier overhaul charges may be expected. I had hoped to be in a position to come before the House—this is a matter I mentioned in my speech on the Estimates for 1926-27—with a request for a Vote for a second fishery cruiser.

I think it will be generally agreed that one vessel can hardly hope to patrol the coast effectively. There are something like 1,000 miles of coast to be patrolled, and with modern equipment such as wireless, poaching steam trawlers can signal from one to another as to the particular location of our fishery cruiser. One cruiser, therefore, is completely inadequate. I may say that this is dealing entirely with poaching trawlers which break not so much the three-mile-limit law as the extra territorial by-laws. Very tricky points arise in that connection that I had hoped would have been solved by this. Still I am satisfied, after consultation with the Attorney-General, that every step that could have been taken has been taken, and I have very considerable hopes that during the year we may be asking for a Vote for a second cruiser.

Dealing with the general position of fisheries, it must be borne in mind that the bulk of our sea-fishing is carried on by part-time fishermen; that in fact we have only a couple of thousand whole-time fishermen, that is, only a couple of thousand persons who carry on the fishing industry on anything like up-to-date lines of the whole-time fishermen who carry it on in other countries. A great deal of the fault for that is lack of enterprise on the part of business people or financiers who would not put their money into the fishing industry. What has developed the fishing industry in Great Britain is the fact that private enterprise and private companies put money into it, by investing in big steam trawlers and employing fishermen along the coast, whereas in this country we have only one steam trawling company—the Dublin Steam Trawling Company— and in fact that company has not all the boats it possesses actually working. You cannot hope to have a very big development of the industry in this country until you have a steam trawling industry, because the small boatman cannot give the regular supplies which are necessary if you want to create a regular demand. While I said during the debate on the Gaeltacht that we were not a fish-eating people, at the same time we import something like 50,000 cwt. of trawl fish every year, value for something like £150,000. That is something worth looking after, and men of enterprise, with a business outlook, could hope to develop it. The small boatman cannot meet the demand for imported trawl-caught fish. I still hold that we are not a fish-eating people, because, if we were, we would be importing at the moment four times the amount we do import, if we were to eat fish at the same rate as other countries. There is a home market for fish worth about £150,000, and there seems to be no effort to get that market. In fact last year this Department, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, offered a subsidy of £20 a week to a steam trawling company to land not less than 100 boxes of fish per week at Cork, for the purpose of developing the Cork market, and the Department would further help by subsidy to organise the inland market abutting Cork. These were towns which would normally get their fish supplies from Cork. In spite of that offer, which I consider was rather generous, as the company could stand to lose very little, they turned it down. Following on that a German expert became interested, and was in consultation with us for a period, Dr. Schweigger, Director of Fisheries, Altona, near Hamburg. From his own investigation he was satisfied that there was a sound commercial proposition in the extension of fishing from the south and west coasts, with comparatively small capital to start off—£10,000. The German financiers behind him would not, however, go into the matter unless there was £5,000 of Irish capital invested. We put them in touch with certain business people in the south, who would be able to put up the money, but they turned down the proposition. The Germans, fearing lack of co-operation and goodwill, refused to have anything further to do with the matter. That is the position with regard to the development of steam trawling at the moment. The enterprise at home does not seem to be very encouraging, and whether we can hope for any improvement in that respect is another matter. We are not losing sight of it. Other ways and other means are being considered. but owing to the discouraging results of our endeavours in the past, I cannot say what the result may be. While that position exists it is really very difficult to ask the House and the country for further fishery protection, when our own people are really subsidising and encouraging the trawlers by buying the fish that they very often catch off our coast. They catch the fish off our coast, land it in England, and it is brought back and eaten here.

Coming to the herring fishing, that too is largely in the hands of Scotch and English fishermen, and indeed Scotch and English curers. It is estimated that from 60 to 70 per cent. of the herring landed on our coast is handled by non-Saorstát people. This Department for the past few years runs a fleet of ten or eleven steam and motor herring vessels which give employment to about 100 fishermen. Some Deputies may urge that the State should supply our fishermen with many more up-to-date boats to catch herrings: But if we were to do so, the fishermen would not be much better off unless they had the backing and support of curing firms, salesmen and banks, such as the Scottish boat-owners enjoy. That particular scheme of ten or eleven boats is one that we undertook at the request of the Gaeltacht Commission when it was sitting in Donegal. We had boats lying up there and under a certain scheme we ran the boats, employed crews on the share system, and sent some of these boats to sea. We are now extending that to the Connemara end and we propose to make a trial for herring with five or six motor drifters between Slyne Head and Achill Head. The work there will be chiefly of an experimental type, exploratory, and we will have to offer a certain inducement, of course, to the men to take it on. We hope to have most of the crew at Galway. In fact we have Cleggan as a base, in order to help the survivors of those who lost their lives in the disaster of the 28th October last. As a matter of fact the herring fishing in the southern portion of Ireland last year was very disappointing, when viewed with the results of former years. The herring did not come in in the same quantity, and was much inferior in quality, and, therefore, of course, met with a rather poor reception in the Continental market. The only herring fishing last year that one could say was a success was the Donegal herring fishing. As usual, the prime herrings came there and the fishermen got a decent price, especially, strange to say, the in-shore man, the man with the small motor boat, using his own nets, rather than the big steam drifting vessel. As a result of that we have had a very large number of applications for that type of equipment this year. That is also extending to Scotland. In Scotland many of the in-shore fishermen are beginning to feel that the working fisherman, that is, the man with the smallest type of boat and gear, which is less expensive, can do far better than the bigger man, and that for himself individually he will make more out of his catch. In addition to the quality of the herring on the south coast last year, the past two years have been rather phenomenal from the point of view of the weather. Storms have prevented even fairly substantial boats from going out, practically three-quarters of the time.

The mackerel fishing last year was somewhat improved, the cause being, of course, that the American market opened again to some extent. About three years ago the position of the mackerel fishing in this country looked pretty hopeless; it seemed to have become a thing of the past because after the war the Americans went in themselves for this fishing; shoals struck their coasts for a period, and they were able to supply practically their own market. It hit the Norwegians very badly, and it hit us very badly, that is, the people who go in for mackerel fishing here, who are mostly along the Cork and Kerry coast, and some at Aran and Galway. Matters seem to have changed again as far as the American markets are concerned; they are beginning again to look for our stuff, and our autumn mackerel fishing this year looks fairly hopeful. I think I mentioned in connection with the Gaeltacht Report that, in compliance with that Report, and with the recommendation of the Fishery Conference, I will be introducing a Bill for the compulsory branding of mackerel for export. That will possibly come on before the Recess.

A short reference to our inland fisheries: Last year was probably a record year for salmon; at any rate, it was better than any year for the last twenty-five years. The quantity of salmon and fresh-water fish exported last year was 37,500 cwts. The export for 1924 were 25,550 cwts., so that there was an increase of about 12,000 cwts. Sea fishing for salmon with drift nets was not, however, such a success. That was because of the weather, and even though the increase in catch as against 1924 was about 47 per cent. there was a very considerable glut of salmon in the market from different quarters, and the increase in price was only about 38 per cent. I think one can claim that the steady improvement that has occurred in the salmon fishing during the last four or five years has been due to better protection, and by better protection I include the protection as a result of the Fisheries Acts of 1924 and 1925, which impose very stringent fines. These fines are not normally now remitted as they used to be. In the past a fishery fine was normally imposed, to be reduced to something nominal. That no longer occurs. Furthermore, in referring to fishery protection, I would like again to express my appreciation of the extraordinary help that the Gárda Síochána gave to the boards of conservators in fishery protection.

I mentioned, in passing, the fishery disaster. The year will probably remain a memorable one in the history of the fishing folk of this country, because of the awful disaster of last October. Thanks to the very generous response by the public to the President's appeal, the dependents of those who lost their lives are being pretty well catered for, and the Government is giving further assistance to see that their lot is somewhat improved.

Viewing the industry in that brief way as a whole one certainly cannot be terribly elated with our progress. One cannot, in fact, be satisfied. The industry is not what you might call in a healthy condition. But we are not the only country in this position; the English and the Scotch herring industry is in a very serious plight too. And it ought to be iterated and reiterated that the Saorstát has given more direct assistance to the fishermen than either of these countries has given to its fishermen. For the present, and until Russia again becomes a buyer of our herrings, the European market will not be as satisfactory as it was in the past. A large expenditure on costly herring boats is, therefore, not a wise policy at present, but in the direction of trawling we can hope to improve our industry. As I said, about £150,000 worth of fish is imported and consumed in this country, and that is a market that an enterprising person, willing to put his money into the industry, ought to be able to seize.

Was the Cork market not a success?

No. It was a failure. I could give an explanation on that if I liked. I said that I offered a subsidy to a certain company of £20 a week for not less than 100 boxes of fish landed per week, and a further subsidy to help them to develop the inland market. There were two causes perhaps which killed the Cork market. One was a very unfortunate campaign that went on one that originated what happened subsequently a campaign of profiteering against the Cork fishmongers. They bought their fish on the first day that it was landed at the Cork market. Reporters were there, and they saw exactly what they paid for the fish. They followed them around to the shops, and saw that the profits at least appeared extraordinary. While I hold no brief for profiteering, one must remember that in the case of a very perishable commodity like fish an allowance must be made as compared with other articles that are not so perishable. Seeing this campaign against them, the Cork fishmongers carried on for at least three or four days. Then they went back to their former custom, and bought their fish in places where nobody knew what they paid for them; they bought from Milford Haven, Grimsby and Hull, and sold at the higher prices at which they always sold, and not higher than the fish they bought in the Cork market.

And there is no prospect of a market in Cork unless a steam trawling company is established in connection with the port of Cork?

I do not quite see how you could have a fish market without a regular supply of fish, which could only be supplied by steam trawlers. It is even not necessary to have a steam trawler landed every morning or even on a fixed day one or two days a week, but I should say that a steam trawler itself would be a sine quâ non.

At the time the market was open was there an arrangement made for regular supplies?

There was. A steam trawler landed for a few weeks but the fishmongers of Cork got shy after this campaign with the result that the fish practically rotted and they would not buy it.

Is the Minister aware that there was a profit made during that period of from three hundred to four hundred per cent.? It might be well to consider the question of marketing from a different point of view. In my opinion the effort which was made was rather weak. It is admitted by those who know something about the fish trade that you must have regular and constant supplies, because we know that if the supply is rather precarious you must be able to pool your supply. In my opinion this question was not approached in a proper spirit. We know that we were within a few months of an election when the fish market in Cork was established, and, of course, a certain political party, whom we need not name, made the greatest political propaganda out of it. People were told that they were going to get cheap fish, but they did not get it. The market was opened with a great flourish of trumpets by the late Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It was good political propaganda, but it was not a good business proposition. I understand from those who know a good deal of the fish industry in this and other countries, and I went out of my way to make inquiries, both here and across Channel, that you must create a pool in Ireland if you want to get supplies. Owing to the precariousness and the irregularity of the supply, due to causes which the Minister knows as well as I, you require several trawlers, not one, two, or three, and you want to concentrate on some particular port in Ireland where you would have trawlers calling and landing fish. That is the way to approach the question. I suggest that the question has not been handled in the business-like way in which private enterprise would handle it. The Minister for Fisheries should not be discouraged so far as the result of this experiment goes. I suggest that he makes the experiment again on a bigger scale rather than having one unfortunate trawler coming into Cork with fifty or sixty boxes of fish to supply Cork and the adjoining district.

On a point of order, is this an interruption or a question in the middle of the speech of the Minister?

I understood that Deputy Anthony was making a speech.

It is a little interruption.

I understood that the Minister had finished, that Deputy Moore asked a question, and by way of answer the Minister had finished his speech.

I am sorry if I interrupted the Minister, but I understood that he was finished.

I assumed that the Minister was finished and that Deputy Anthony was making a speech.

I did not rise to make a speech but to try, by way of question and answer, to get some information from the Minister in regard to the fish market in Cork. I have suggested that one little trawler coming once a week to Cork, which I consider to be the first city in the State, is not sufficient for our requirements. I think that the President got a fair specimen of the class of fish caught in Cork waters, and those who read the newspapers must have been delighted to see that we showed the President what we could do in the way of salmon fishing in the city. I would like to have some information as to the future in regard to fishing. Does the Minister intend to take any steps to put into practice the methods outlined in his speech for the development of the market? He stated that important people in the fish trade were consulted in the South. I would like to know the channels from which he got his information. Naturally, if he consulted people with vested interests it is hardly likely that they would supply him with information which would make this market a success. It is only human to expect that if I were a fish merchant I would not be in favour of setting up a rival institution which would be subsidised in a small way by the State. The Minister stated that they were prepared to subsidise some of the trawling companies to the extent of £20 a week. It is not likely, therefore, if I were a fish merchant, that I would be prepared to give information to the Minister to set up a rival organisation to the one which I was controlling.

There is a good opportunity for developing the fishing industry along the Cork coast. Fishermen complain from time to time of the want of capital for nets and other gear. I know that the Ministry have at times been generous in that connection, but some fishermen are ignorant of the means of approaching the Ministry and they have been asked to fill most intricate documents about which I spoke to the Minister recently. Such documents are, I suppose, of the kind that would be issued by a Government department for the purpose of getting statistics. I know a good deal about the fishermen and I know that very few of them would be competent to fill up this questionnaire. It is, as I say, a very intricate document—questions in regard to the length of the mesh and other particulars, might be simple enough, but there are other questions which should not be submitted to the ordinary fisherman. In regard to inland fisheries, in which I am very largely interested, I must pay tribute to the Department for encouraging anglers' associations and in that way encouraging a certain phase of the development of the tourist traffic. I think, however, the Department might go a little further in the way of propaganda in our villages and towns. I have fished in many rivers and it is my experience that in consequence of poisoning and too much netting a river easily becomes exhausted. I am more afraid of poisoning than over-netting. I believe that while the penalties for poaching fish out of season and so forth are high that the penalties for poisoning are not sufficiently high. Anyone who has an angler's experience will tell you that while he has little or no objection to excessive netting, poison, even in a limited degree, is far more injurious.

While I pay a tribute to the Minister and his Department for what they have done for Fishery Conservators and anglers' associations I think that much more could be done by propaganda— leaflets, etc., which could be issued to the Gárda Síochána for distribution in the various districts pointing out the intrinsic value of the fisheries in the country. Of my own knowledge I know that several people are coming to fish in the country because they have been told, and rightly so, that owing to the activities of the Gárda Síochána in co-operation with water-bailiffs and others, our fishing promises to be very good this year. Trout and salmon fishing has certain attractions and if it became known that we had plenty of salmon and trout in our rivers we would be able to get an increased number of sportsmen to visit our shores. I am not one of those who run after tourists. I do not want to see the people developed into a sort of bag-carriers, but there is a type of tourist which we could with advantage induce to come over to this country. I refer to the sportsman who comes along with a dog and gun, a brace of greyhounds, a pack of harriers or a rod and line. In my view, at any rate, he is a most desirable type to get.

I would like if the Minister would give us some enlightenment before the Vote is put, as to what he intends to do further to encourage inland fisheries in the way of supplying yearlings and fry. Ova may be very acceptable and useful to the riparian owner who has a hatchery or may be useful where you have a well-organised anglers' association or an effective body of conservators with bailiffs, etc., but the giving of ova to unorganised people or even to people who do not understand anything about fish culture is, in my view, a great mistake. We know that a very large number of the ova never come to anything, never even develop into decent fry. Consequently, I think it would be a good thing if the Department were to distribute to bodies such as anglers' clubs and riparian owners, who have hatcheries on their estates, yearling trout at a low rate. I do know that clubs are supplied at a very small cost with yearlings and fry, but I would appeal to the Minister for the reasons I have stated—that not alone would it develop a good sporting instinct in our own people, but that it would prove a very great attraction to the best type of tourists you could get to the country, sportsmen who would come from abroad—to make a further effort in this direction.

I would like to ask the Minister on what evidence he founds his statement that the fishermen of this country are dealt with more leniently than the fishermen of Scotland and England. I find that in 1921 the British Government, finding the sea fisheries in a deplorable state after the war, voted right away a sum of £2,000,000 for the development of fisheries. That goes to show that they place great value on the development of the industry. In fact, in my opinion, all maritime countries cannot afford to neglect developing their sea fisheries. That is proved by the Vote passed by the British for the development of their own fisheries. Like the development of every other arm of industry, the better it is developed the more you will get out of it and the more the country benefits by it. If you apply that principle all round, if laxity is developed in other directions as well as in the fishing industry, it means that our business will be of very little consequence to the nation as a whole. In 1924 the British again voted £150,000 for the further development of the fisheries and the help of the fishermen in England and Scotland, showing clearly that they take the development of that industry very seriously. If they had not developed it before the war, as they had, if only to meet the necessity that arose for mine-sweepers after the outbreak of war, they would not have their fishing smacks to clear their bays of the mines dropped there by foreign vessels. In my opinion, what is wrong with the fisheries, particularly the sea fisheries, in this country, is that the cost of administration, comparing it with other countries, is very high, and the help given for development is very low. It is remarkable that this year, while the cost of administration has an upward tendency, the amount devoted to fisheries and other minor industries under the Fisheries Department has a downward tendency. That should not be so, in my opinion. I hold that the reverse should be the case.

I think it would be fair to compare the Danish fishing industry and the help it is getting with the industry in this country and the help given here. A comparison of that kind would be a good lesson. In 1925-26 the Danish people voted for the development of the fishing industry a sum of £372,000. In 1926-27 they voted £360,000, and in 1927-28, £340,000. The administration of that sum costs them only £1,600 per annum, while in the Free State it is estimated that the cost of administration will be over £22,000 for this year. That is a comparison that does not seem at all favourable, as far as the development of Irish fisheries is concerned. I hope that a change will be brought about in that direction in the future. If more money were voted— and I hold we should vote more for the development of our fisheries—I believe that such a Vote would get the support of this House. I believe that with proper consideration and administration the industry would pay eventually. We are told by many people that it is not a profitable industry. However, it is an industry that it is up to the Government to help, and the only way of getting it out of the disappointing position in which we find it to-day is by financing it in a courageous way, as Deputy Anthony suggests. In 1926-27 there was given in direct loans to the Danish fishermen a sum of £14,000, while in the Free State there was only given, I understand, a sum of £7,900.

In 1926-27 the Danish people voted directly for loans to fishermen £23,000, and in 1927-28 they voted the same amount, while £7,000 apparently is about the amount voted in direct loans to fishermen during those years by our Fishery Department. The Danish fishermen are very much farther away from the fishery grounds than we are. In fact, we are right in the middle of the fishery grounds, and surely we should be in a better and more advantageous position to develop the industries than the Danish or any other European countries. For that reason, I think we should face the thing with hope and get about the problem in a more generous fashion than we have done up to the present. We find also that in the matter of piers and in the construction of piers, the Danish people voted £200,000, while we voted only £2,500 for the same purpose. We have been told that the county councils, in some cases at any rate, will not undertake to construct piers. That is the case anyway in the County Mayo. I have been given that as the reason why nothing is done; that the county councils will not undertake some liability in the matter of the construction of those piers. The councils, in most cases, are in difficulties financially, and they do not find it possible to advance money for this purpose. When they do not find any profitable returns they are very slow to vote money. This is one of the things that a Government Department should do. Construction of fishery piers round our coast should be taken up by a Government Department.

I find that for the year 1926-27 —the last year for which, up to the present, we have the figures—there was about £26,000 on an average unexpended in the Fisheries Department, and about a similar amount in 1925-26. That is to say, of the moneys voted for the development of fisheries, about one quarter of the total has been unexpended. The total amount is a very small one—between £80,000 and £100,000. Certainly, to find of that sum about a quarter unexpended is not a matter very creditable to the Department of Fisheries. I repeat that a quarter of that comparatively small amount is a very large sum to find unexpended.

This is a matter that should get very serious consideration. The Ministry of Fisheries should take their courage in their hands and push the development of sea fisheries to a greater extent than they have done. I agree with what Deputy Anthony said on this matter. As I stated when on a recent occasion, I was speaking on this matter in connection with the Gaeltacht, really the key to the development of sea fisheries is the establishment of a fleet of heavy boats that will be able to fish under ordinary conditions in the high seas, and be in a position to supply the markets of this nation with as near as possible a constant supply of fish. At least, such a fleet should be able to compete with outside fisheries in supplying the home market. It is only in that way that we can hope to check the contracts that are leaving this country both in the governmental Departments and in other institutions throughout the country for fish from abroad. With the proper development of these sea fisheries that matter could be secured. This is the key to the situation. It would help this country to develop a market for fish here, and that development of a market for fish is very important. In that way the Government could assist in the development of the home market. I am afraid that the difficulty in the Fishery Department will continue to exist until something like that is done.

We are all agreed as to the necessity for the development of fisheries, but I think the problem that we are faced with in considering this matter is the practical means by which our fisheries can be developed. The Minister has said more than once that we are not a fish-eating people. That is so, but I think the main reason, or at least one of the main reasons, at any rate, in the past has been the difficulty of getting a supply of fish. My suggestion would be that the Minister and his Department should turn their attention to creating a taste for fish by supplying fish. By organising a supply of fish that taste might be developed. The Ministry should organise the supply of such fish as is available. This suggestion has been made more than once. I do not know that the Minister has ever given the matter any serious consideration. We have not heard anything about it, recently at least. The Minister has told us the steps he took to establish a market in Cork and to subsidise private people who might undertake the distribution of fish to some town in the immediate neighbourhood. I think perhaps another way might be found of dealing with this problem, and I do not see any objection to trying that. There is everything in its favour. That would be for the Minister to experiment himself in the way of opening up fish stores in some of the principal towns adjoining the fishing stations on the south and west coasts. These stores would be under the control of his Department. He would have a supply of fish there for sale in those retail shops.

I observe that the Minister smiles at that suggestion, but I think he will find it a practical suggestion, to give the people in some of the inland towns— in Mayo and Galway, Cork and Limerick—an opportunity of purchasing fish at those departmental stores. I believe the people would purchase the fish if these stores were established. I know of many towns, not forty miles from a fishing station, where fish cannot be procured for any money. I know of towns actually on the coast where fishing is going on and where it is impossible to procure fish except from England. I think this is a problem that the Minister should face if it were only for the purpose of an experiment. I believe this is a practical suggestion and I believe it can be carried out. He could arrange for a supply of fish in those stores. Even if these shops were open only on certain days, say market days and fair days, as the case may be, or two or three days in the week, they would create a taste for fish. He might supplement that by sending motor vans through portion of the country for the purpose of supplying fish to the inland towns.

Let him do that either by way of subsidy or let him employ people actually to do the work. I believe that can be done. As to the question of the taste for fish, I believe that we are not a fish-eating people, because, generaly speaking, we know of only one way of cooking fish. The ordinary country people know of just one way in which to cook fish. It is here that the co-operation of the Technical Education Department might be sought in certain areas. And in that way, by having the fish available and showing how the fish might be tastefully prepared, people would be enticed to buy fish. Not only would that help the fishing industry but it would provide a valuable and cheap source of food for the people. I think that by some system such as I suggest good might be accomplished. To some extent also by a system of advertising a home market can be created. I believe that in that way the taste for fish could be increased very considerably and a home market created.

In some countries people who deal in fruit have pooled their resources, and by advertising they have created a taste for fruit. We have heard the slogan "Eat more fruit." Why not a slogan "Eat more fish"? The Minister could do a good deal to develop the home market which, after all, is the principal market. He says himself that there is £150,000 worth of fish imported. It is not so much that particular market that I am speaking of now as the creation of a market for the cheaper kinds of fish which people are anxious to obtain and which they might be very anxious to buy if they had an opportunity of purchasing.

I have been from time to time a rather severe critic of the Minister for Fisheries, and therefore I am glad to-day to be able to congratulate the Minister on the very helpful and very good statement that he has made, particularly with regard to inland fisheries. I think the Minister for Fisheries has done very great work in that matter, which I may term a not unimportant part of the whole business. I know from my own observations of one of the hatcheries in the Glenties, and from my own personal experience with rod and line on the river—and I believe there are many others who could say the same—how enormously in the instance of salmon fishing have conditions improved since that section came under the charge of the Fisheries Department.

There is one aspect of salmon fishing that I would like to dwell upon for the moment. I have been asked by some people in Donegal to suggest to the Minister that he might consider the possibility of extending to a very slight extent the period of time allowed for salmon drift-net fishing. Being a keen angler with rod and line, Deputies will understand that the very last thing I desire is that the fish should not get a fair chance of getting up the rivers, of spawning and re-producing their kind. Personally I would be vehemently opposed to anything like a relaxation of the weekly closed time for salmon. As regards the particular fishing I speak of, drift-net fishing, I believe I am right in saying that it extends to five or six weeks at the most, from about the 10th June until somewhere about the 10th July; at least that is the period with us. I know that the men engaged in it are very anxious, if it were at all possible, to have the period extended. If I am right, I believe the closed time is from 12 o'clock on Saturday morning to 6 o'clock on Monday morning, or something of that sort. What the people there would desire to have is the possibility of adding one night a week, Sunday night. That would mean a total of extra fishing of not more than five or six nights in the year and it does not seem very serious. If the problem can be considered by itself, and I think it can, I think it is a matter that the Department might very well look into. I do not press it at all. I should be very sorry to press for a general invasion of the weekly closed time, but I think there is a special case where this fishing is carried on over a very short period and I say that the matter is easily separable from the general question of closed time. It is probably a matter that would need legislation and therefore I do not go any further with it.

There are a few points upon which I should like, if I might have it, a little further information from the Minister. He has already referred to one matter himself, a reduction in the Vote for fisheries development. I did not quite grasp the point. The Minister dealt with it, but I did not quite understand what the reason for the reduction is. Perhaps I was inattentive, and I now would like to know from the Minister whether the Vote here is the total Vote which we may expect and what relation is there, if any, between the Vote for fisheries development and the moneys which we understood the other day were being provided for general development in the Gaeltacht. I do not know how far we have the whole thing here and how. As far as the Gaeltacht is concerned, other moneys may, or may not, be available from another source. The same point arises in relation to sub-head I—Minor Marine Works. The amount is the same as last year, £2,500. I am not very clear what minor marine work means, and I would be glad to be enlightened by the Minister on the relation between his Department and the Board of Works.

Again, I would like to know whether any further provision—and, if so, what —is likely to be made in connection with the Gaeltacht development. There is a sum of £2,500 mentioned. There is one harbour alone the development of which would cost much more. Within the last few days this harbour, the harbour of Rathmullen in Co. Donegal, has been pressed on my attention. It is already a considerable fishing centre, and it might be made considerably greater, but in order to make the pier there what it ought to be the sum required would be at least three times the total provision here. I would like the Minister to make it quite clear what exactly the relation is between expenditure by his Department and expenditure by other Departments in the same sort of matter. One's difficulty often is that one does not quite know what Department one ought to approach when these questions arise.

I will now come to one or two of the other points raised by the Minister. With regard to homespun development, the Minister mentioned that there was to be a carding and spinning factory in Donegal.

Carding and dyeing.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that is to be a single factory or whether it is proposed there shall be small supplementary factories in other districts? I ask that in particular for this reason. I understand the inspector or organiser—I do not know the proper term to use—who was recently appointed to look after the development of that and other home industries has recently been in Donegal, and I was rather surprised to learn that he does not appear to have visited one of the districts in which the industry is most alive. I refer to the district of Gortahork, and I might also mention Dunlewy where, in spite of discouragements upon which the industry has fallen in recent years, it has been carried on very steadily and with very considerable local success although, as I have indicated, it has fallen on evil days. If the Minister would give some further particulars of what he is going to do in regard to that I would be grateful.

The next point I wish to deal with is fishery protection. The Minister has explained the reasons for the reduction of the Vote. That strikes one as rather hard. I hope that when he has got over certain legal difficulties involved, which I trust will not take long to settle, that he will come to the House and ask for provision for a second cruiser. Might I ask him to consider in the interval, as an interim measure, the possibility of protection by smaller boats—motor boats? I know that some of the officials of his Department have considered this. I think it is quite possible that something might be done in that way. I am aware of the objections that may be made. One is that motor boats are not capable of going the pace of a fishery cruiser. Their whereabouts would probably be better known than the whereabouts of other classes of boats. I cannot help thinking, however, that motor boats might be of very considerable service for this purpose, and their cost would be comparatively small compared to the cost of a cruiser. In the report of a fishery prosecution which I read the other day, it was made quite clear that if there had been anywhere in the neighbourhood a boat capable of going up to the offenders that they would probably have cleared off and been deterred from coming back again. That is a point that I think is well worth looking into.

With regard to State loans for boats and gear, I am not clear as to the exact methods followed at present. There have been a series of methods in operation. I am familiar with the old share system which the Congested Districts Board had. That has been discontinued. Certain boats referred to by the Minister, which are Department boats, are, I understand, being worked not exactly upon the share system, but I imagine on a system of part profits. Speaking of the district with which I am most familiar, I think I am right in saying that these boats only form a fraction of the whole fishing fleet on that part of our coast. I would be glad if the Minister would indicate generally the policy of his Department with regard to the issue of loans for boats and nets. I am not speaking now of loans for large vessels. I am inclined to agree with the Minister, and think he is right in believing, that our people who are farmers as well as fishermen are likely to remain, for a long time to come, in-shore fishermen rather than deep-sea fishermen. For myself, I do not believe in the probability of any great development of deep-sea fishing amongst our people for some time to come. Meantime you have got the in-shore fishermen. I know from personal experience what large profits, relatively to their small means, the fishermen in our part of the world can make. I gave an instance of this the other day. I noticed that one paper turned my modest figure of £20,000 into £200,000.

The loans I speak of are comparatively small loans for nets and gear. I would be glad if the Minister could see his way to be a little more ready than his Department has appeared to be in the past in the granting of these facilities, because it is quite obvious that nothing could be worse for the industry, nothing could be more melancholy or more depressing to a whole coast-line, than the spectacle, which we have in too many cases, of boats permanently laid up and rotting in the harbour while men are unable to go to sea for want of gear. The Minister referred, not to-day, but in the discussion of the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission, to kelp and carrigeen, and to the possibility of starting a factory. I would be glad if the Minister would give the House some more details as to what is proposed in that matter. I would like to know from him if it is proposed to obtain assistance from other countries. The people in France and elsewhere are interested in it.

The fishing industry in Ireland is an example, perhaps one of the greatest examples, of the exploitation, not only of our material resources, but of our minds. Here is an island, and, owing to the fact that we have dropped into the habit of thinking in the British way about the fisheries of Ireland, we are doing no deep-sea fishing, as if we were in the centre of Germany or somewhere else. It is a paradox. We are just drifting on as the British did before there was a change of any sort in this country. People seem to think that, not only are we incapable of catching the fish that come around our shores, but that we are traditionally incapable of eating fish. The whole thing is one of these huge jokes that we used to associate with the régime of the British Government in Ireland, and we have remained in the old rut. In the administration of this Department there is a total lack of the big idea, of an attempt to organise the fishing industry upon a proper footing. The fisheries are there, and possible markets are there, with a considerable return in the form of money. All we want is someone to come forward with a comprehensive scheme in order to ensure that our fishing industry will be made profitable. At one end you have a possible development of markets, and at the other an obvious need for large boats.

It is not an unheard-of thing; there are precedents for it I understand, and even in this country, for the Government to take a certain interest in shops. It has been done in other countries in the case of the sale of meat, and there is no reason why a Government should not, where there is no one else in the market, establish proper shops in inland towns, and organise them in such a way that the fish will be put in those shops in an attractive way, and not in the pitiably filthy condition in which one sometimes finds the fish markets throughout the different parts of the country. If these shops were properly organised it would not be difficult to find the money through a scheme of guaranteed profits, or raising loans. Loans, or the recasting of loans, for fishermen were promised by the Government more than a year ago but nothing has been done in the matter since. There is every possibility of developing the markets. To say that the Irish people are not a fish-eating people is sheer nonsense. Glasgow, which has 300,000 Irish people, consumes an enormous amount of fish and in the humblest of fish shops you get the best fish, and cooked better than anywhere else. The people there have a discerning taste, and know what is good in the way of fish. There is no reason why, if shops and transport were better organised on lines carefully directed, together with propaganda, we should not make the people eat a good deal more fish than they do at present. The imports of fish in 1926 totalled in value £290,000. If the markets were properly organised and proper boats were supplied there is no reason why any fish should be imported into this country.

The plea in regard to fishing that has been made on behalf of Mayo and Donegal is exactly the same as the demand that is made by the tidal fishermen in County Waterford. The tidal fishermen want an extension of time. They have only about 42 days in the year for fishing and they can only fish according to the tide, which limits the numbers of hours of fishing to something small. They want at least an extra day. They would like, and I think this would be a pretty universal demand, that the time would be extended, that they would be allowed to begin a fortnight or so earlier than they do at present, and also that there should not be too many restrictions in favour of the rod men as against the tidal fishermen who have to live by fishing. The rod men are rich while the tidal fishermen are poor men, and they should have the first right to get the benefit of the riches in the rivers. They ought to have their claims considered. One suggestion made by the tidal fishermen is that the period allowed to the rod men should be shortened and open the season earlier for the tidal fishermen. The whole administration of the Department is at fault, not that one means to blame the permanent officials in any way, for I imagine it is the Minister who should bring the big idea and it is the officials who should carry it out. The Minister does not seem to be equal to the situation, and does not seem to have the courage or the ideas to carry through big schemes, and so it may be said that the whole Department is at present, from the point of view of the poor fisherman, a complete failure.

I sympathise with the Minister with regard to the limited amount of money placed at his disposal each year for the development of the fishing industry, but while I do so I think it rather strange that the whole of even that limited sum has not been expended. That is difficult to understand. Speaking for the people of the north-west coast of Mayo from Killala Bay to Blacksod Bay, I must say that the conditions there are simply deplorable. I have heard statements with regard to the want of fishing gear and boats, and facilities, but there is very little advantage in having boats and gear if you have not the harbours and the piers in the condition in which they should be to enable the fishermen to make use of them with advantage. On the last occasion when the Minister applied to this House for a Vote I asked for some assurance on this point, but the county council, needless to say, were not anxious to undertake a certain responsibility. That work was carried out in the past by the Board of Works on behalf of the Congested Districts Board. They built the harbours and maintained them. Realising the sad plight of the fishermen on the north-west coast of Mayo, and notwithstanding that the county would be involved in considerable expenditure, the Mayo County Council undertook that they would maintain these piers and harbours provided the Fishery Department would put them in proper order. That was going a long way. I would remind the Minister that he recently visited the north-west coast of Mayo, and, if I do not mistake and am not misrepresenting him in this matter, he made promises with regard to certain things he would do in the way of the repair of piers, and particularly I would bring to his mind the pier at Belderrig. I do not know if the Minister is aware that the Mayo County Council passed a resolution undertaking to maintain these piers provided the Department put them in proper condition. I would take it as a favour, although I am entitled to ask for it as a right, that the Minister should give a definite reply on that point. We do not wish to rush him. Perhaps he has not the necessary funds at his disposal, but the Mayo County Council have gone out of their way to meet him on this point. As I have said, so far as the north-west coast of Mayo is concerned boats and fishing gear are useless, because the piers are not there for the accommodation of the fishermen. If they were to go to sea under present conditions they would be risking their lives. We have had sad experience of that recently and that should be a lesson with regard to the precautions which should be taken to provide against a repetition of it. I ask the Minister to state what he is prepared to do with regard to putting the piers from Killala to Blacksod Bay into proper repair. As the County Council has gone a certain distance, it would be only reasonable that the Minister should go a certain distance to meet the position.

As far as the fishermen on the west coast of Mayo are concerned, they have now, as in the past, received but very scant consideration. I think the Minister will agree that that is the case— that they have received no consideration whatever. These piers have been in a state of disgraceful delapidation for many years. Before I came to this House, appeals were made on various occasions by my predecessor in the representation of North Mayo, and by many other people, on behalf of the fishermen. The attention of the Department was directed to that state of affairs. On this occasion I hope that something will be done, and that it will be unnecessary to mention the matter in future.

If, as Deputy Law has said, the Minister is to be congratulated upon his statement, so far as it concerns inland fisheries, he certainly cannot be congratulated upon it in so far as it applies to sea fisheries. The statement was so gloomy as to be alarming. I regret very much that this Vote is being taken on an evening when there is, for perhaps legitimate reasons, rather a small attendance. In my opinion, the decay of the fisheries is a very serious matter for a country with such small developed resources as the Saorstát. It is strange, indeed, if this House can regard with equanimity a statement so gloomy as that of the Minister, a statement so incomplete as to give us no idea whether there is any prospect of improvement in the immediate future; whether the Minister for Fisheries has given up any hope, as apparently the Minister for Finance has, that the fisheries are going to prove a good proposition at any time. The House will recollect that the other evening when the Gaeltacht Commission's Report was being discussed the Minister for Finance interrupted Deputy Fahy to say that while he agreed that there were fish around the shores of the Saorstát he could not agree that there were either fishermen or markets. That indicates that the most important Minister of the Government, after the President, is not hopeful about the fisheries, and that in itself is a very grave fact. That the Executive Council, charged with the development of the country and with the responsibility of maintaining, particularly, the productive resources of the country, should have no faith in what used to be regarded as one of the most promising fields for enterprise that this country enjoys is, to my mind, a most serious state of affairs. I hope that before this Vote is passed the Minister for Fisheries, or some other Minister, will state definitely whether they have come to the conclusion that fisheries are a useless proposition, that they must be left to decay, or whether they have any intention of making a determined effort to recover the position.

We must remember that during the Great War the income from fisheries was something approaching £1,000,000. That is a very substantial sum, scattered, for the most part, amongst the poorest people. Considering that the fisheries at that time were not under a native Government, one would think that when a native Government got hold of that resource they might hope at least to bring the figure up to something like that amount again. If there were that hope, then I consider the House would be justified in demanding further explanation as to the present decay, or at least in asking the Minister to say whether the present state of things is in his opinion, temporary; whether he has any scheme for improving it; or whether he, too, like the Minister for Finance, apparently has made up his mind that it is only a matter of time until the fisheries disappear.

I come back to the Minister for Finance's statement. He said the other evening that he does not agree that we have fishermen. That raises a very important point, because it must be obvious that there are two sets of fishermen within the country—the fishermen on the Eastern coast whom nobody can deny are fishermen, and the fishermen on the Western coast, who are partly farmers and partly fishermen. In my opinion, there should be a firm differentiation between these two sets. Nobody can deny that the fishermen on the Eastern coast from Clogher Head down through Howth to Arklow and Courtown are industrious, that they love their avocation and are prepared to go to any extreme to make it prosperous. Nobody can say that they have ever shirked their duty in any way. Their record in connection with loans from the Fishery Department is extremely good. I object strongly to any policy which, because of the expense and the unprofitableness of the fisheries on the West coast, would mean less care and less attention to the requirements of the Eastern coast. Other Deputies can plead the case of the fishermen on the West coast, but so far as those on the Eastern coast are concerned they are well worthy of the nation's consideration and of the careful consideration of this House, and anything that can be done to encourage them in their industry should be done.

I submit that there is not merely an industrial problem, but a human problem, in connection with this matter. Everyone who has any regard for the historic Irish nation would certainly regret that the fishery industry should disappear. The fishermen have always been one of the most interesting features in the country. Everybody who knows them will admit that they are an extremely fine body of men, that they are in many ways an ornament to the country, and everyone would regret that they should disappear. But in this case we can only speak of the industry as an industry. I should like to know from the Minister, if the industry is decaying, what is the particular cause. Is it that the men are not working? Is it that the fish are not there? Is it that the markets cannot be found? I think that replies to these three questions should cover the subject. The men are there so far as the districts I know are concerned, and they are ready to work very hard at their calling. I believe that there have not been very good times recently—that the fish have not been so plentiful. Even during last month I do not think the herring fishery was so successful as it has been in previous years. That, after all, has always been the case. There has always been these fluctuations, and I do not think that the occurrence of such fluctuations could be any justification for the Minister's gloomy outlook in making his statement.

I suggest that we should get much more information from the Minister with regard to markets. Not long ago I read in a fishery paper that Holland sends fish to 27 countries. I wonder do we send fish to more than three? We send it to Great Britain and, I think, Germany and America. With regard to the Russian market, for instance, I would like to know what steps have been taken to get in touch with that country with a view to re-opening the market there formerly so prosperous, and which would be such a very great advantage at present. The Minister ought to give us very definite information upon that point. It can hardly be that the Executive Council is so careful of its reputation that it refuses to have anything to do with Russia. If other countries with as big a prestige and as big a standing in the world as the Saorstát are trading with Russia at the present time it would be a great surprise to learn that until the Soviets have mended their manners and have become respectable as other countries we will not have anything to do with them. The Minister himself admitted that that market is of very great importance, and I would like to hear what has been done by his Department, whether by way of sending a representative to Moscow or communicating with the Russian Government to try and re-open business with them.

Similarly with regard to Germany and the countries bordering on Russia where there was always a very big demand for Irish herrings, we should like to know what efforts are made to widen the market there. Personally, I would like, if the Minister does not object to answer a personal inquiry, to know whether anything has been done to get the European market for cured mackerel. I do not know what the present position for cured mackerel is in America. I think the Minister made a statement it was not too prosperous at the moment. At all events for a number of years past competition with Norway was proving too much for the Irish trade, and it threatened to disappear at one time.

I often wonder why no effort has been made—of course I am speaking from information which I have gathered—to try and get a market in Europe for cured mackerel. So far as I am able to find out, I am told that a great proportion of the cured mackerel that goes out to America is consumed by emigrants there from Europe. Then there is the British market. I should like to know how far we are holding our own there and whether that market is availed of to the utmost extent. Then we come to the home market. Various opinions were given on that matter this evening. It is said that we are not a fish-eating people. I do not think any of these explanations is fully satisfactory. A country where the people almost universally abstain from meat on one day of the week ought to be a considerable market for fish. I know the difficulties of this Department, but I am disappointed that the Fisheries Department has not made a better effort to try and establish the sale of fish in country towns in Ireland. Numbers of people who would gladly buy fish are in this position: that in order to purchase fish on a Friday or any other day they have to go to premises that are not business premises or premises up to the standard of cleanliness that would be required for the sale of so delicate a commodity as fish. It often seemed strange to me that this Department has never devised a scheme by which particular shops could be licensed in country towns on certain conditions. In the average town of a couple of thousand inhabitants it would be quite possible to get efficient business people to undertake the sale of fish if they were guaranteed a monopoly, and in that case conditions could be imposed that would make the sale of fish attractive. For instance, the marble slab is necessary for the preservation of fish and to make the establishment at all approachable or tolerable that should be made a necessary condition. I often wonder why the Department could not bargain with at least one such person in each town for the sale of fish. and make such provision that the person who undertook to provide certain conveniences such as that and the necessary amenities should be guaranteed a monopoly of the business. That is one thing I put forward. There is another matter more important.

I think a great opportunity was missed here two or three years ago in connection with the sale of fish in this country. There was a big syndicate established called "Fish Supplies, Limited." It was established with a couple of million pounds of capital in England. For some reason or other the concern failed. The intention of the syndicate was to supply fish directly to the consuming public of Great Britain. For that purpose they had special vans built. These vans were the last word in perfection so far as the carrying of fish safely and attractively was concerned. That concern failed, and these vans that cost very big sums of money were sold for a few pounds each. I often wondered why it was that the Department of Fisheries—I cannot recall the year, but I think it was 1923, and perhaps other things were looming on the horizon— did not procure a few of those vehicles. If there were a few of these vans emanating from places like Howth or Arklow—and the latter port could supply Carlow and Kilkenny—one could easily imagine that they would afford a real test as to whether the Irish people wanted to have anything to say to the eating of fish, and whether they desired a regular supply or not. The opportunity for getting these vans was lost. They could have been got cheaply.

I suggest that as the Ministry of Fisheries is largely a trading concern, and differs very much from other Departments, it might well have indulged in an experiment of that kind. I am sure it could not have resulted in serious loss. There is no good saying we are not a fish-eating people when we import such large quantities of fish. Practically every institution in the country is using fish more than one day a week. In that connection we would like to know what is done to try and get custom for Irish fishermen in the principal institutions. Further, is it correct to say that the fish used by the Free State Army is still purchased from England? Is it correct that all the leading public institutions, such as convents and boarding schools, are almost entirely supplied from the other side of the water? We would like information on that and, if it be so, we would like to know what has been done to combat it. Is it a question of regular supplies? Is there no port in Ireland that can guarantee a regular supply of fish? In his 1926 statement, from which I happen to have a quotation, the Minister said: "Last year the cod and white fish showed a considerable improvement. That was due chiefly to the enterprise and energy of the Arklow and Howth fishermen." That tribute, I take it, is as true to-day as it was two years ago, and if these men have the enterprise and energy, so that in one year they can largely increase the yield of white fish, could not an effort be made to arrange that they would bring regular supplies to a particular port, so that these public or private institutions, as the case might be, would have no excuse for refusing to take their requirements from Irish fishermen? Or is it, again we ask, a matter of regular supplies, a matter of price, or a matter of prejudice? We all know that there is a great quantity of goods brought into this country, and that the only excuse for that is prejudice. We would like to know if there is a prejudice against Irish fish. In connection with what I have just quoted from the Minister's speech, it would seem rather to conflict with what he said in reply to my question a while ago, that the existence of a market in Cork could hardly be maintained without a trawling company within the vicinity of Cork Harbour. If the Arklow and Howth fishermen were responsible for the big increase in white fish in 1926, or perhaps the Minister was referring to 1925, and as these men are not trawlers, I think that would seem to show that white fish can be supplied in considerable quantities without the necessity for trawlers.

There are other matters that we want the Minister to explain, one of the chief questions being that of technical education. I noticed he has given very little information, and has told us very little about what he proposes to do regarding the chief recommendations of the Sea Fisheries Conference. At all events, in the report of the Conference a good deal of stress was laid on the necessity for education. Remember that this Conference was composed of men who were pretty eminent in different walks of life. It was probably as good a Committee as could be got together, composed of men who were not sentimentalists, men who were not prepared to start off with the idea that fishermen are the grandest people in the world, and that everything they wanted should be given to them. I take it that they all approached the question with very critical minds. They made certain definite recommendations, and we have heard hardly one word about them this evening. One recommendation was in regard to technical education, and I think their recommendation is supported by the report of the Commission on Technical Education, which also made definite recommendations with regard to the education of fishermen. We would like to know whether that is to be ignored, or whether it is under consideration, as the question of loans has been for so long. This is one of the recommendations of the Conference that is of most value:

"That in all Government Departments where fish is required the supply of Irish-caught fish shall be insisted upon, as we believe that such fish, while probably costing more, would by reason of its quality and freshness be in the end really more economical, and also that where fish contracts are about to be arranged the Department of Fisheries shall be consulted for advice and information."

We would like to have some statement from the Minister as to how far that recommendation is useful to him, or is being acted upon in his Department. There is another recommendation, No. 18, which states:

That the Department of Fisheries shall examine the possibilities of cooperating with some firm of repute in the Irish fish trade with the object of testing, by an experiment extending over a period of at least six months, the prospect of establishing in one or more selected inland towns a regular market for suitable classes of fish. The Department's commitment in the adventure to be restricted to a limited and definitely agreed contribution towards expenses.

Has that also gone by the board? Perhaps I was responsible for cutting short the Minister's statement, but at all events, if he satisfies us with regard to these things when he replies, we will be grateful to him.

He was rather too brief regarding the organisation of the fishermen. He merely referred to it, and said that he was prepared to give £1,100, I think it was, towards the cost of organising the fishermen, but that his conditions had not yet been accepted by the Fishermen's Association. I think we are entitled to know whether there is a prospect of his conditions being accepted, and, if there is not, whether anybody will be asked to arbitrate, because it is just possible, particularly if the Minister is acting on his own. that a third party would be able to bridge the difference and bring about a compromise between the Minister and the Fishermen's Association. In that connection, too, we would like to know what his ideal is, if he thinks the fishing industry is going to continue, with regard to it. Does he hope to see an industry controlled from the inside? Does he hope to see an industry based on a number of co-operative societies at the most important centres, these co-operative societies being linked up in a federation, and the fishermen, through their representatives, controlling, financing and in every way helping the industry? Is that what he is aiming at? Has he any such vision before him with regard to the industry? So far as I have been able to get information, I find that Norway has probably the most prosperous fishing industry in Europe, and the Norwegian Fisheries Council is based on co-operative societies established at the leading fishery centres.

We would like to know whether the Minister is aiming at that; whether, if he is able to come to terms with the Fishermen's Association, he will endeavour to give that bias to the industry in the future, and whether, so far as his influence with the organisation goes, it will be directed towards that end. But at the moment I think we are entitled to know what is holding up his decision with regard to the Fishermen's Association, that is, if it be a matter where no harm would come from telling the House. I can conceive conditions in which the cause of peace between the two bodies would be injured by giving out facts here; but if that be not the case I think we are entitled to know what the difference is and whether there is a hope of getting over it.

There are many other questions that would have to find a place in a comprehensive statement. For instance, we were told a couple of years ago by the Minister that the kippering business was extremely satisfactory, that there were five kippering houses at Dunmore and that the products of those houses were getting a great reputation on the Continent. How far has that continued successful? How far is there an unlimited market for herrings in Ireland, either fresh or kippered, and what effort is being made to get these herrings marketed in the most profitable way? We would like to know if there is any danger at the present time that if fishing developed to a certain extent there would be no market for certain kinds of fish. Is it not correct that there is almost an unlimited market for herrings? Is it not correct that the sale of kippers, for instance, could be extended very considerably, not merely in Ireland and in Great Britain, but on the Continent? Then there was very little about the loans problem. Of course the Minister for Finance told us the other evening that a Bill was shortly to be introduced. It is a pity, in my opinion, that that Bill was not introduced long ago. I am sure that whatever difficulties existed, they were no more insurmountable two years ago than they are to-day. Anyhow it is hoped that the Bill will not be any longer delayed. In addition to that problem we would like to know whether fishermen are at present being held up from fishing by the fact that their boats need repairs, that they have not the means to do them, and that they cannot furnish the necessary securities. If that be the case in many instances where men are genuine fishermen, where they have good reputations as fishermen and have been regularly engaged in the industry, I think it would be a wrong state of affairs and that it would be a big loss to the country, if the Fisheries Department, simply for fear that it would be too kind to these men, would not go in, and take a risk by giving such a small loan as would be needed for the repair of the boats. We would be glad of some information on that, that is, if the Minister has statistics as to what number of boats are held up at present, the ostensible cause being that the fishermen have not the means to get them repaired.

The Minister referred to a State brand for mackerel and, I think, said that he was about to enforce it with regard to export. Some time ago there was also a proposal for a State brand for herrings, but inasmuch as the Minister said this afternoon that the quality of the herrings taken in recent times has not been up to the usual standard, we would like to know whether he is still of opinion that a State brand for herrings is necessary and whether it would be of advantage to the industry. There is also such a question as insurance—whether, if the Department is to be continued, if the Department is to be regarded as a live Department with a future before it, it would not be possible to devise some method by which fishermen could insure themselves against the failure of the fishing in a particular season. We all know what a serious matter it is for fishermen to have to go to the expense of preparing their gear, and take it away long distances from home and then return with no reward for their efforts.

I believe that the problem is rendered very acute for the Arklow men by the fact that they have to bring two sets of nets with them when they are going to the south coast. They go to the mackerel fishing early in the season, and they bring the herring nets with them for part of the journey. It is necessary, of course, to store one set of nets when they are using the other, and that makes a big hole in their profits. As well as that, one can see that if in such a case the fishing fails, as it has failed on some occasions, that means a big upset to these men, and it would be interesting to know whether the Minister has any scheme by which they could be insured from time to time against such big trials. I thought the Minister would have told us whether the new Agricultural Credit Corporation will be of any benefit to fishery societies, if they are formed. I would also like to know if it is proposed to finance fish curers through the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and whether the Minister thinks that developments may be expected in that direction.

In such an industry as this, where the prospects are, according to the Minister's statement this afternoon, so very gloomy, it is important that some effort should be made to keep the industry stable, not to allow decay to set in, at least prematurely, where it may turn out at any moment that the full utilisation of this resource will be of immense importance to the country, for instance, during the period of another European war, or anything of that kind. In view of such circumstances we hold that this Department requires the most careful attention, and for that reason we ask the Minister to give us as comprehensive a statement as possible with regard to the points that have been raised. We ask him to be frank with us, to tell us what his own mind is on the subject and what the mind of the Executive Council is. We would like to know definitely whether the attitude is merely one of hanging on, or whether it is intended to use the resources of the Department to the last penny for the purpose of infusing life and energy into this industry.

Deputy Moore, who represents a deep-sea fishing constituency, has practically covered the ground with regard to all the deep-sea fishermen's grievances. I would like to know from the Minister when the Bill that was promised last year for the new valuation will be brought in. The trouble amongst the deep-sea fishermen is that, while they may catch fish, they do not get within one hundred per cent. of the prices that you see displayed in the shops in Dublin. They have to depend solely upon the dealers who attend at Howth or Arklow. I agree with Deputy Moore that if the Department could arrange some means of transporting the fish to inland towns there would be a great demand for fish and the fishermen would be receiving better prices than they receive at present.

Large numbers of dealers, when they find that there is a great harvest of fish at the various ports, give a very small price. The fishermen have to dispose of their fish in order to get to sea again, with the result that the public have to pay 100 or 200 per cent. more for the fish than the fishermen receive. I would like to know from the Minister if it is his intention, when bringing in a Bill for the revaluation of boats, to include in it the recommendations of the Technical Instruction Commission to the effect that a school for motor engineering and for the education of young fishermen be opened in Arklow. A large number of Arklow fishermen will not, as the Minister is aware, benefit by the re-valuation of boats. Several of them have loans outstanding and last year I made an appeal to the Minister and to the Finance Department not to impose such drastic conditions on a number of men who have already had loans from the Department and whose gear has either been lost or worn out, as I know that these men would rather have their boats remain idle than comply with the conditions of the Finance Department. I admit that the Minister, in response to an appeal made some years ago, has removed the condition in regard to the period of sixty years but a large number of people are still in difficulties. While they are willing to pay their loans they are unable to get a reasonable price for their fish and during a bad harvest they have received writs threatening them with prosecution and, included in the amounts sued for, are the grants given to the fishermen in 1922.

A grant of £100 was given as a free grant and the Fishery Department took complete control of the disposal of the fish. Nine or ten fishermen in Arklow who received these grants are now being billed for the amount. They had not the right of disposing of their fish but now they are asked to pay the sum of £100 which they got as a free grant from the Government. In my opinion the fishermen should be put on the same footing as farmers who have the benefit of the advice of instructors paid out of county rates and agricultural grants. Last year I appealed to the Minister to make arrangements by which the Government would organise the fishermen. I am not concerned in the dispute between the fishermen's organiser and the Fisheries Department but I agree with Deputy Moore in saying that this dispute should be settled, and that the association be given a grant in order to help the fishermen to organise themselves. In conclusion I again appeal to the Minister to bring in a Bill for the revaluation of boats and also to inform us as to whether it is his intention to open a technical school for fishermen in Arklow.

I have listened to the debate with great interest. I have heard Deputies praise the wonderful progress of the fishing industry in Norway, France, Holland and Germany, but they did not tell us that these countries were self-governing nations for centuries and that they had command of their own purse for many years, while the Government responsible for the success of our fisheries have only been in office for five years. From the reign of Queen Elizabeth down to the Union, and even afterwards, our fisheries were decaying, just as were our other industries, because the intention was to wipe them out and throw the Irish race back on the land, and they had to go back to it. The Land Commission are now endeavouring to rescue those whose forefathers were hounded out of the fishing industry owing to mismanagement and misrule across the water. Now that we have our own Government I refuse to believe that they are indifferent to the future prosperity of the industries of their native land. I have practical evidence of that in regard to the work of the Land Commission, in regard to the Shannon Scheme, and in regard to the beet-sugar industry. This question of the deep-sea fisheries is very complex. It has been said that the fishing population is now reduced to 2,000. In 1845 we had 60,000 people engaged successfully in the fishing industry.

I know that it is the ambition of the Government, from the President down, to try by practical means to bring back that industry, step by step, to its original prosperity. That cannot be done at once, but I rely on the Ministry of Fisheries and on the Government to safeguard the interests of the remaining fishermen who are holding out the lamp of hope to future generations to come into the industry. How is that to be done? In the first instance, I was glad to hear the Minister for Fisheries announce that we must have more protection for our own fishing boats. I represent the constituency of South Cork where there is as brave a race of fishermen, from the Old Head of Kinsale to Castletownbere, as there is along the whole coast of Ireland, and these men tell me that the French boats come in and steal the fish which should be the property of the local fishermen. A French fleet of lobster boats comes inside the three-mile limit outside Schull, and other parts of the adjoining seaboard, send out their punts after dark and steal the fish there. There is a great responsibility on the Minister to grapple with this question, but I am satisfied that the Minister for Finance and the Executive will come to the rescue of these fishermen. Money is no object when it is a question of preserving our brave fishermen who have to fish in an indifferent class of boat compared with the splendid boats from France, Germany and elsewhere. A fisherman from Cape Clear told me that the cost of one of these foreign mackerel boats would practically cover the cost of all the boats from Kinsale to Castletownbere.

I appeal to the Minister to send a delegation to these foreign countries, mentioned by Deputy Moore as being prosperous, to study the methods there. Let him send some of the fishermen from the south and some from Aran to France, Norway, Germany and Holland to see how fishing is carried on in these countries, and I believe that they will come back to this country with information which would be of great benefit to themselves and the community generally. We send delegations to study the conditions of agriculture in Denmark and elsewhere. Why not send a delegation of fishermen to study the fishing industry in France and other countries? We are told that we have a mine of wealth along our seaboard. I say with all honesty that the Minister for Fisheries, with all the resources at his command, is doing his level best to come to the assistance of every class of fisherman. His resources are limited and he cannot make a mountain out of a molehill, but I hope he will come to the assistance of our line-fishermen and small fishermen along our coast and keep up our supplies at home. If he will help them he will be helping the most deserving class of our deep-sea fishermen.

While I believe that the Department of Fisheries is deserving of the censure of the House for its inactivities in many directions during the past year, I would like to say, before entering on any criticism of the Department, that I believe the Vote we are called upon to pass, a total of £49,202, is altogether inadequate if we are to develop our fisheries in a proper manner and take the full-time and part-time fishermen out of the poverty-stricken condition in which they find themselves at present. When we take into consideration that there was imported into this country during the year 1924, £307,000 worth of fish, during the year 1925 fish value £293,000, and during the year 1926 fish value £292,000, and also take into consideration the fact that this country is surrounded by what I might describe as fish-filled waters, we must agree that there must be something radically wrong in the machinery which governs the fisheries of the country. The Minister has told us that we are not a fish-eating people. Nevertheless, we consume a pretty large amount of fish, and I believe that with a proper distribution of the fish the people would consume even more. If there was a better system of distribution and better advertising and if an educational campaign were embarked upon to instruct people as to the food value of fish, better results would be obtained.

One of the factors that has a very bad effect on the fisheries of the country, and the fisheries of Donegal in particular, is the fact that foreign trawlers are allowed practically unmolested to come within the three-mile limit and to take away the fish, thus depriving Irish fishermen of the means of feeding and clothing themselves and their families. The Minister has referred to the fact that up to the present we have only one protection vessel and he said that during the next year he hoped we would be able to get another protection vessel. On the 18th January, 1923, in reply to a question which was put to him in regard to this matter, the Minister stated that he hoped then to be able to get another protection vessel. Although five years have elapsed since that answer was given, another vessel has not been procured. Some considerable time ago when. I think, a debate was raised on the adjournment by Deputy White, the Minister for Fisheries stated again that he hoped to be able to get two additional protection vessels. We still have the promise but we have not the vessels, and meanwhile the fish are being taken away from our shores in very large quantities.

The Minister also referred to the fact that he hoped during the year to make a grant of £1,100 to the fishermen's organisation in order to organise fishermen. I understand that offer was also made approximately twelve months ago, but in making the offer the Department laid down certain stipulations which should not have been laid down. In the first place I understand that the Department insisted upon nominating the majority of the Committee of the Fishermen's Association. It also insisted upon selecting the organisers of that Association. I believe if this industry is to be made a success and if the Irish fisheries are to be developed, it is absolutely necessary that the fishermen should be organised in a proper way. I would appeal to the Minister to amend that offer and to withdraw these stipulations in order that the fishermen's organisation may be able to take advantage of the offer. It was recognised, as the Minister will admit, by the Fisheries Conference that the work of organisation among fishermen could be advanced better and advanced in a more economical manner by voluntary organisation than by having State organisers.

The Minister in the course of his statement said that he believed that we were doing more for fisheries than was being done in other countries. I would like to refer him to the fact that in the year 1921 the British Government voted £2,000,000 to assist the Scottish fishing industry. Again in the year 1924, it voted a sum of £150,000. I understand that the Danish Government are also devoting a very big amount, in order to develop their fisheries. In the financial year 1925-26 I understand that the Danish Government voted approximately £372,000 to develop their fisheries as compared with £75,857 in the Free State. Again in the year 1926-27 we find that the Danish Government voted £360,000 as against the Free State Vote of £71,857, while in the year 1927-28 the Danish Government voted for the development of its fisheries £340,000 as against our total of £65,061.

Deputy Sheehy suggested that it would be a good thing if some of the officers of the Ministry of Fisheries would take an educational trip to Denmark and study the actual conditions obtaining there. I think that is a very good suggestion, and probably the Department might act on it. I think it is also absolutely necessary, if we are to take the fishermen, part-time and full-time, out of the poverty-stricken condition in which they find themselves, that we should have a revaluation of the boats. I would like to read for the House a statement which has been issued by the Irish Fishermen's Association in regard to this question of the revaluation of boats. It states: "In September, 1926, an undertaking was given by President Cosgrave and Mr. Lynch to a deputation that waited upon them that no legal action would be taken against the boat owners or guarantors for arrears on loans of £50 and upwards until the whole matter had been examined into and reported upon by the Conference which they had agreed should be held. This undertaking was not kept. Neither was the implied promise that the Fisheries Conference would deal with the question of revaluation, for a special note in the Conference Report reads: ‘Owing to the pronouncement made by responsible Ministers immediately prior to the sitting of the Conference we consider ourselves debarred from dealing with the question of revaluation.'" As Deputies are aware, these loans were given when the cost of living was higher and everything dearer than it is to-day. Consequently we find as far as these loans are concerned that while in 1920 the arrears on loans to fishermen amounted to £4,746, in 1923 the arrears on outstanding loans amounted to £49,376. These figures, I think, prove conclusively that the fishermen's condition instead of getting better is in reality getting worse, and those figures all prove the necessity for this Bill to which the Minister referred in regard to revaluation being introduced without any further delay.

There are other ways, some small and some large, in which the Department of Fisheries could have improved the fisheries had they really been desirous or serious in doing so. In passing, I might mention that I think the Minister stated in the course of his remarks that fishing in Donegal was in some districts a success last year. I admit that in some parts of Donegal it was a success. In other parts of Donegal unfortunately it was not the success that we would have liked it to be, while in one particular case, Buncrana, we find that the total catch of herrings was more last year than in any year before. We would have thought that the Department of Fisheries or the other Departments of the Government would have made an effort to give to the fishermen there any facilities that would help to make the fishing more successful. Now, some time ago, in order to get these facilities, the fishermen there in Buncrana approached me and pointed out to me that the post office is situated a distance of more than half a mile from Buncrana Pier. The approximate distance is six furlongs, and the fishermen experience great difficulty in getting their telegrams away to the various cross-Channel markets owing to the delay experienced in sending telegrams to the post office. The suggestion made was that we should talk to the Parliamentary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs in order to get a telephone extension to the pier. The cost of carrying out the suggested improvement would be very little, not more than £30 or £40, but the reply that we got from the Department for Posts and Telegraphs was that the hire of the telephone would have to be paid for by the Buncrana Urban Council. Surely if the Government were sincere in their desire to improve fisheries they would have expended this sum at Bunerana in order to improve the fisheries there.

In regard to this Vote totalling £49,202, I observe that out of that sum the amount paid in salaries, wages and allowances is £22,217, or I might say approximately £45 per cent. While I notice that the total amount of the Vote has been decreased, I observe at the same time that the total amount of the salaries has been increased. In passing I might say that possibly this might not have been too big an expenditure with regard to wages, salaries and allowances, because I believe that even yet the Department's staff is not big enough to carry out its duties in a proper manner. But if they are going to devote this money to salaries, wages and allowances I believe they should allocate to the Department of Fisheries a much larger sum than is being allocated at present. I think the result is a proof that the whole Department of Fisheries should be reorganised in order to try and improve fisheries. In order to do that, and to inaugurate a proper policy, like they have in Denmark, and in other countries in Europe where fishing is carried on successfully, a much larger amount than we are asked to vote upon now should have been allocated to this Department of Fisheries. I hope, however, as the Minister said, that a Supplementary Vote will be introduced later on, in order to give this Department sufficient funds to carry on. There is no use in criticising the Department of Fisheries or the officials if we are not prepared to vote to them a sufficient amount to control and improve the fisheries in the manner in which we would like to see them improved.

I would like to ask the Minister for Fisheries, if he has not been already asked, to call down to Youghal, Ballycotton and Ballymacoda and see for himself the state of the fisheries in these places. I would like to ask him to call especially to Youghal where we had a sad disaster within the last month and to find out how that disaster was caused. Those poor fishermen were compelled to go out in boats that we know were not fitted for the work they were called upon to do. These fishermen lost their lives. Perhaps this was due to circumstances over which we have no control but I hold it is the Minister's duty to find out whether these circumstances were beyond our control or not. I am sure, knowing the Minister as I do, and having such confidence in him, that in the near future he will go to Youghal and to these other places mentioned and make inquiries from the local fishermen. That I believe is the best class of inquiry that could be made. Then he will be in a position to give assistance, financial and otherwise, and he will be able to give instructions as to what is the best means of developing the fishing industry in these centres. I do not like to labour the question. I know very little myself about fishing. At the same time I have full confidence in the Minister for Fisheries and I am certain he will interest himself in the safety of the fishermen in these districts and in all the Saorstát. Deputy T. Sheehy said a while ago that the French people were poaching in our waters. I think we will have to order out our fleet to meet them. I content myself with speaking for my own part of the country. If every Deputy looks after his own district the whole country will be well looked after. I content myself with asking the Minister to come down to Youghal, Ballycotton and Ballymacoda and I am sure that the Minister will also be interested in developing the fisheries around Cobh. I hope the Minister will pay attention to the matters I am putting before him. I am sure he will.

I want to sympathise with the Minister for Fisheries on different grounds from those on which the other Deputies spoke and I do it in one respect and that is in regard to the amount of money allocated to the Department of Fisheries this year. That amount of money is entirely inadequate for the purpose. And it seems rather a joke to set up a Department and set up a Ministry and not give that Department sufficient capital or sufficient funds to carry on its work or to do its business. The Minister in the course of his speech stated that the fishing industry was not in a very healthy condition. A few days ago I came across some figures which might be of interest to Deputies as giving an idea of the decline in fisheries in the past 100 years. Any of those Deputies who represent a maritime constituency like my own will realise from their experience in the different towns of their constituency how that decline and decay have affected the industrial prosperity of the town as well as of the country. In the year 1830 there were in Ireland 13,119 registered boats and 64,771 men engaged in the fishing industry. By the year 1845 there were engaged in the fishing industry 60,000 men.

Along the coast of Ireland. In the year 1890 this number had come down to 5,665 boats and 21,122 men. In 1923 there were 709 boats of all kinds and 2,883 men solely engaged in the fishing industry, and 3,090 boats and 9,090 men partially engaged in the fishing industry. This decline would lead me to emphasise the point made by Deputy Moore, a point that I hope the Minister will deal with in the course of his reply. That is that we should get his considered opinion and the considered opinion of the Executive Council as to whether they consider the fishing industry worthy of allocating any sums of money to at all, or worth any attention at all. I think the question put by Deputy Moore should receive attention from the Minister when he comes to conclude the debate. In the course of the introduction of this debate he stated that it was very difficult to get Irish capital to invest in the provision of a fleet of steam drifters. I think these were the words he used. Might I suggest to him to consider the possibility of establishing Local Loans Funds, assisted by the State of course, to the extent, say, of 50 per cent. I am certain that if those were established in the various fishing districts the capital necessary for the provision of modern steam trawlers and modern gear would be forthcoming without very much difficulty. It is a point worth considering, and it is a departure worth investigating.

During the past five years, so far as I can estimate, some £105,000 has been spent on administration in the Department of Fisheries. In the course of the Gaeltacht debate, a few days ago, one of the recommendations was discussed: the expenditure to be incurred in providing small slips and breakwaters, and repairing existing ones. The Government observation on that was that provision had been made each year in the Fisheries Estimate for grants towards these, but in no year up to the present had the money so voted been availed of. In the Estimate for 1928-29, out of a total Vote of £49,202, only £2,500 is to be devoted to what are described as minor marine works, which, I presume, mean the improvement of small slips, the provision of new slips, the improvement of breakwaters and the repairing of existing ones. If the dredging operations are added to this we get a total of £3,500, which I consider is totally inadequate for the purpose. In one portion of the constituency of West Cork alone there is a stretch of coast from Dursey Island to Castletown and Cahermore, a district which, I am sure, the Minister knows well. Along that stretch of coast there is no slip of any description, and that stretch of coast would certainly use up nearly the total Vote if the money were to be expended on repairing and improving the slips and breakwaters. It was a great pity when these Estimates were being drawn up that the Minister for Finance was not induced to provide a larger sum than is provided.

The question of protection for Irish fishermen, and for the fishing industry, is a question which is not and has not been tackled seriously. The Minister for Fisheries stated that every step that could have been taken had been taken in connection with the extra territorial portion of the waters around the Irish coast. Deputies are aware that, within the last few weeks especially, depredations by foreign trawlers on the south-west coast have occurred. In Monday's "Cork Examiner" we find that at Dunlough, Goleen, near Mizen Head, a French trawler was found fishing for lobster within the prohibited three miles' limit. The Superintendent of the Civic Guards asked that a substantial penalty should be inflicted, as encroaching French trawlers were taking the livelihood from the poor fishermen of the Mizen Head area. The District Justice fined the defendant £5, with £3 2s. costs. On to-day's paper we find there was a prosecution yesterday in Skibbereen. French lobster poachers were prosecuted, and amongst the remarks made by the State Solicitor, he mentioned the enormous damage being done on their coasts by these French lobster boats. He said that, acting for the Land Commission, he had to ask that day for a number of decrees against parties living on Hare Island, off the West Cork coast, who were farmers and fishermen. These men lived practically exclusively on lobster fishing in the summer months. French boats had come there year after year and had taken away the lobsters.

Deputies have referred to the question of protection and I notice in the Estimate there is provision for the upkeep of a fishery cruiser to the extent of £8,000. I think that, as Deputy Law stated, some investigation should be made of the possibilities of securing a small fleet of the type of boat that the United States Government are using in attempting to catch the rum runners. Surely a small boat such as the British Government used during the war, submarine chasers, would be more effective than two or three of the larger sized fishery boats, and I am certain that a small fleet of these boats could deal more effectively with the situation. They could be concentrated at different vantage points around the coast and they would be much more effective, I believe, than the "Muirchu" or the new cruiser that the Minister hopes to secure.

There is another point which might be considered by the Minister. Some of the foreign trawlers have come to within a mile of the coast and they have poached there and our fishermen have been compelled to watch them, having absolutely no protection themselves against them. The effective range of a Lee-Enfield rifle is about a mile and if a few men with these rifles could be stationed around the coast it might give the poachers a fright and make them keep off and it would give our people a chance. I suggest that could be tried since no other protection seems available for these unfortunate men.

The Minister referred to the disappointing season in regard to herrings on the south coast last year and the inferior quality of the herrings. There is one thing that I would like to bring to his notice and I trust that he will not brush it over with a sarcastic reply. I mean it in all sincerity. We have a Department of External Affairs and there is no reason at all why an attempt should not be made to negotiate a reciprocal treaty or agreement with the French, the British and the Dutch Governments with regard to an all-round close season for herrings. Last year the herring fishing started too early, on the south-west coast anyhow, and the result was to be seen in a statement issued a few weeks ago by the Stettin, Danzig and Konigsberg importers of cured herrings, who are amongst the largest buyers on the Continent. They have issued a warning that they will not buy or receive on consignment any herrings cured in Scotland before June 19th, as last year's markets were spoiled by early unkeepable and inferior herrings. That applied also to Ireland in the last fishing season, in April and May of last year. They say also that the past season was a most unfortunate one for all importers because of the heavy losses incurred by the early Scottish herrings which are now unsaleable. There is no use in attempting to enforce a close season on the south, west or east coasts of Ireland when these foreign boats can come along, get the fish and tranship them to England and put them on the market there. Could there not be negotiations for some agreement or treaty whereby there would be an all-round close season? It is worth trying anyhow, and if it did that our Department of External Affairs would be giving some good reason for its existence.

We find also that we are importing nearly £150,000 worth of fish, according to the Minister's statement. Some effort might be made in that direction of investigating whether or not that could be stopped. It certainly is a crying shame that the fishermen off our coast who risk their lives from sunset to sunrise catching fish, and who go out in ill-provided and ill-equipped boats, have to dump the fish they catch overboard when they return as they can find no market for it, while we import fish to the value of £150,000 as we did last year. The Minister might be able to do something in that direction, and I hope, when he comes to reply, he will give the matter some consideration. With regard to the penalties inflicted on foreign poachers, the Fishery Conference in No. 19 of their recommendations suggested that by legislation or otherwise an effort should be made to deal with these poachers. So far no real effort has been made to protect our Irish fishermen against these foreign poachers or to make them realise that they cannot have their cake and eat it. No real effort has been made to keep these people away from our coast.

The Minister, I think, mentioned the difficulties that exist with regard to the three-mile limit. I wonder is there such a thing as an international three-mile limit? I would like to know if I am correct in saying that France enforces a six-mile limit in her territorial waters for fishing purposes, and that Norway enforces something like a four-mile limit, while there are other countries which have not the standard three-mile limit referred to by the Minister. If the countries I have mentioned have limits, such as I have stated, could not an arrangement be made to adopt the same system here? We are promised a Bill to deal with a brand for cured mackerel and cured herrings. Could not a clause be inserted in that Bill to deal with these foreign poachers? I am sure that the Dáil would not put any obstacle in the way of passing such a measure rapidly because I think some more desperate measures, if I may so characterise them, need to be taken in connection with these foreign poachers than have been taken up to this. Fines of £5 to £20 are of absolutely no use in dealing with this menace. Neither is the confiscation of their catches. To deal with these people in that fashion is of no use, because they are backed by a syndicate and are enabled to come back again and do the same thing with greater courage. In the Licensing Act, there is a section regarding the endorsement of a publican's licence which inflicts, in my opinion, great injustice on licensed traders. I think, in regard to these foreign poachers, that legislation should be passed by this House enabling district justices, before whom these people are brought, to make an order confiscating their boats and gear. If any international difficulties arise in connection with that, our Department of Foreign Affairs can be brought into action with a view to solving them. Some attempt, at any rate, should be made to deal with these foreign poachers.

The Minister spoke of the fleet of boats with which he is experimenting on the west and north-west coast and discussed the extension of his operations. I think someone said, in the course of the debate, that there were very few fishermen left in the country. I can say that in one little town in West Cork the Minister will find plenty of fishermen to use one of these boats if the opportunity is given to them. I hope he will extend the operations that he has referred to, and will include the stretch of coast from Kinsale to Mizen Head and around to Ardgroom. If the Minister is prepared to extend his operations to that district he will find plenty of people who, if given the opportunity, are prepared to take up this steam trawling business.

There is another point I wish to refer to. It is to the amount of £1,100 allocated in this Vote for organisation amongst fishermen. Whatever difficulties are in the way of giving recognition to the association already established, I think, should be overcome by arbitration. The reason I urge that is that the position is serious and every effort and assistance should be given to save an industry which is decaying. I hope that when replying the Minister will give some indication as to the attitude he intends to pursue with regard to this important matter. The fishermen can be organised only if they find that the Government is going to give encouragement and backing to them. Their organisation should be encouraged and supported. As this is a matter of vital importance the Minister, in my opinion, should do everything in his power to bridge the difficulties that exist at the moment between the organisation that has been established and his Department.

There is another matter to which I think the Minister did not refer, namely, the question of freights and cartage rates on fish transported from Irish ports over Irish rails. Some years ago a conference was held under the auspices of the Fishermen's Association. One of the principal matters urged on the Department and on the Government was that, as regards Irish fish carried over the Irish railways and bus lines, if possible, preferential rates should be given. I wonder if anything has since been done in that matter? Is the Minister in a position to give any indication to the House as to whether he has used his influence with the railway companies with regard to the transport of fish and with the shipping companies as regards fish intended for export?

The question of the revaluation of boats purchased on the loan system has already been dealt with. I do not intend to deal with that question at any length, except to urge that one point in connection with it should engage the Minister's immediate attention—that is, the writs issued against fishermen for the non-payment of arrears. These people are in very poor circumstances at the present time. Anyone knowing the fishing areas as I do will agree that unless these people are given a chance of getting on their feet it will be impossible for many of them to pay these arrears. Some consideration ought to be given to them. As to the provision of loans for the purchase of new boats, no difficulty should be raised in the matter of granting loans where the fisherman who applies for one can prove that he is a reliable and capable fisherman, that he will work the boat satisfactorily and repay the loan over the specified period of years. That was a matter that was recommended in the matter of the Gaeltacht Commission. It was pointed out in that report that if an attempt were to be made to save the Irish language it must be made in the Gaeltacht areas. The fishermen in these areas are the mainstay of the Irish language, and therefore, I think, it is of the utmost importance that a serious effort should be made to put them on their feet. One way in which economic salvation can be brought to them is through the development of the fishing industry. To enable them to develop that industry provision must be made to supply them with boats and adequate gear. The Minister should waive any difficulties that are in the way of providing loans for them. Unless that is done quickly, the industry will decay and disappear.

It was Deputy Sheehy, I think, who spoke of the work of the Department and said he was confident that everything would be all right. I am not confident because, as I have said already, the sum of money allocated for this Department is certainly not sufficient to deal with the big questions at issue, or to make a real man-size attempt to save the fishing industry of this country. Money is being voted for other purposes which, in my opinion, could be more profitably voted to this Department. Some serious effort should be made to make this a real live-wire Department. Otherwise, the fishing industry will decay.

It is a shame that in drawing up the Estimates no real attempt was made, considering the Gaeltacht Commission's Report was to come before the Dáil, and that the Minister for Fisheries was to have charge of the Gaeltacht, to give the Department sufficient funds to carry out any recommendations with regard to the improvement of the economic conditions in the Gaeltacht. So far as the Department's attitude towards the south-west coast is concerned, there is one grievance which I hope some attempt will be made to remedy. There are harbours at Kinsale and Castletown at which lights are badly wanted for fishermen and for the foreign vessels coming in. That is a part of a national scheme which the Minister should consider. I trust when he is making his concluding statement he will make some references to the points raised by Deputy Moore and by me with regard to the international three-mile limit and the reciprocal arrangement for an all-round close season.

With reference to the inland fishery of which I have a good knowledge, living in the centre of Westmeath, I should say that in that County are three lakes which are celebrated all over the world as regards trout fishing. I would like to draw the attention of the Government, and particularly the Department of Fisheries, to the great asset—a gold mine—which they would have in the lakes of the country if they were properly developed. We have, in Westmeath, an organisation called the Lough Owel and Lough Ennel Preservation Association. We have a limited number of workers and a limited number of subscriptions. This year we received from the Minister for Fisheries a sum of £60 to aid us. For that very small sum of money, this year we have eight hatcheries, in which we hatched 300,000 ova. We have put wire cages on some of the rivers where the trout come up and spawn. We took out 20 or 30 of these trout and stripped them of the ova, and we put them into disinfecting cans, and took them from that to the hatcheries, and the sun and water did the rest. The commercial value of the ova we hatched out is over £200. I understand there are very few such organisations in the Free State, and we are one of the few certainly doing very great work. I would like if the Minister would consider it a little more, because we are anxious to further develop our activities. Out of the small sum received we have two bailiffs employed during the close season, and one during the open season. We have a patrol boat at Belvidere and one at Lough Owel. We have bailiffs minding the trout that come by the thousands for the spawning season. No person would understand it unless he saw the enormous number of magnificent trout, six pounds or seven pounds in weight, that go up these rivers now and that used never return. They were taken out, packed in salt, and they were very useless for food. The destruction done was very serious, and to an extent that is difficult to believe.

I wish to pay a tribute to the Civic Guards, who gave us great assistance in the preservation of these rivers, and in allowing the trout to return to the lakes. If at all possible, the Minister should allow us something more than £60, because we are undoubtedly doing good work. In a week or ten days, when the May fly-fishing starts, we will have the best fishing in any part of the country. Visitors, by reason of that, come from England and all parts, and they circulate a very large amount of money. I repeat that the inland fisheries, if developed, are a gold mine. Year after year I have drawn the attention of the Government to the fact that they should spend a larger sum of money. I know that the Minister for Fisheries is sympathetic, but probably he cannot get as much from the Minister for Finance as he would like. The development of inland fisheries would mean attracting thousands of visitors, and would be the means of putting a large amount of money in circulation.

As one deeply interested in this great industry, upon the future of which depends so much the welfare of our seaboard, I may say that I have listened with much interest to this discussion. I have tried to gather from it if possible words of hope and comfort, but with the exception of one pronouncement, which we heard from the Government Benches, I am afraid that the prospect for the future is not hopeful. We have heard from the Government Benches that in the future this great industry will be fostered without regard to expense. A picture has been drawn before us of the Minister for Finance standing under a new flag upon which will be emblazoned the words "Department of Fisheries," and underneath it the words "Damn the Expense." I hope that undertaking will be carried out, because sometimes it is very hard, as we all know, to get at the soft side of the Minister for Finance. But if it is carried out I hope he will not commence by reducing estimates, as has been done, I am afraid, on this occasion. I do not think it is always serviceable to go on discussing figures, comparing, for instance, as we heard it most solemnly compared this evening, the total expenditure with the total salaries, the latter roughly estimated at £22,000, and the entire expenditure at £45,000, whereas if the Deputy who made the comparison would look up the returns he would find that the figures were £22,000 out of a total of £85,000.

We heard a comparison of skiffs of 1830 with the fishing vessels of 1928. I do not think it serves any useful purpose to be going by comparisons such as that. The fishing boat as we understand it to-day was entirely unknown 50 years ago, and the vessels we have along the coast were introduced I think within the memory of a good many people here. When I spoke on the Fisheries Estimates early in July last, with great regret I drew attention to the fact that the fishing industry along our coast was being hunted out of existence by the foreign poachers. Apparently there was no method of dealing with them, or at all events no method had been adopted up to this time—I am afraid the position is the same still—that would effectually deal with the Welsh and English trawlers. They come along and openly defy the law. If they are caught and duly brought before a District Court a fine of £100 is imposed. They never pay the fines, and fines to the amount of thousands of pounds remain uncollected and no method has been discovered or adopted by which they can be collected in Scotland and in England. I cannot help believing now, as I believed in July last, if that difficulty—and it is only a small one—were taken in hands, that within a very short period we could find some method by which we would be able during the coming season to face the foreign trawlers with some measure of success.

Not merely does our difficulty with regard to foreign trawlers exist, but, as Deputy Mullins has stated, you have the French lobster boats around the seaboard of West Cork during the last few weeks openly fishing amongst the rocks. When they were boarded, or attempted to be boarded, by Civic Guards—and great credit is due to them for doing it, whether they had authority for it or not—they promptly adopted in advance Deputy Mullins's suggestion and drew rifles, and cleared the Civic Guards back, and there was no remedy. The Civic Guards have no powers as sea-fishery officers. The Minister for Fisheries appeared to think at one time that it would not be advisable to give them those powers. He suggested that it would be useless to give them the powers, as they had not sufficient maritime experience. I must confess that I would prefer a sea-fishery officer without any maritime experience to having no sea-fishery officer. I would appeal to the Minister to give the Civic Guards, who have done their duty—and perhaps what was not their duty at the risk of civil action—who have done their best to maintain the sea-fishery laws, sufficient powers to enable them to act legally, and not make them the laughing-stock that they have been made by some French fishermen who are getting to know the law and think they can openly defy it. We have one boat which has done wonders, but it cannot patrol the coast from one end to the other. As to the fine of £100 for trawlers caught poaching, that is inadequate, and was fixed at a time when fish was worth nothing like what it is worth to-day, and when the same demand did not exist for it. That fine of £100 is reduced in the case of offences under the Fishery Acts. Speaking from recollection, I think the maximum for a first offence is £10. So far as the District Justices are concerned, they do their best, but they are tied up within the Statute. The matter of poaching by foreign trawlers ought to be dealt with at once by an amendment of the Act, and dealt with in conjunction with the authorities on the other side of the Channel in such a way that in future we will be in a position to recover from Welsh, English or Scotch poachers the penalties they deserve.

The Deputy is now advocating an amendment of the Act.

Mr. WOLFE

I was pointing out that, so far as the Estimates were concerned, unless we have these powers, there is no prospect of developing sea fisheries. Dealing directly with the Estimates, there is the question of the revaluation of boats. I admit that that has been dealt with very expeditiously and to the best of his ability by the Minister. I must say what I was unable to say in July, that these impoverished people, many of whom have their boats rotting on the beaches, afraid of the sheriff, have been dealt with most mercifully and most fairly by the Minister within the last six months. I hope that the same consideration will be, as I am sure it will be, extended by him in future. I hope that he will have, at a very early date, a general revaluation of the boats. It is useless to expect that people will go fishing and bring out their boats when they have hanging over them large decrees, any one of which would swallow up the value of their boats three times over. That is a matter that ought to be dealt with afresh, and dealt with on a very large and generous scale. Above all, it should be dealt with expeditiously. Many of these fishermen are anxious to go fishing, but with these chains round their neck it is impossible for them to go. The matter is one of urgent necessity, and I impress it on the Minister, knowing that he is very sympathetic to the unfortunate people who have been placed, through no fault of their own, in very sad circumstances.

SEAN O GUILIDHE

Tar éis an méid atá ráite ar an gceist seo, níl morán le rá agam-sa ach ba mhaith liom cupal focal a rá i dtaobh iasgaireachta na tíre seo.

I wish to join with other Deputies who deplored the small amount provided for development. In reply to Deputy Wolfe, who referred to the unfairness of the criticism levelled at the Department of Fisheries and at the cost of administration as compared with the sum spent on development, I should like to point out that in Denmark the amount voted last year was £340,000. The Department of Fisheries there is managed by a Director with a salary of £660 a year, whereas here we pay the Minister £1,700 and the Parliamentary Secretary £1,100, which would prove that the amount spent in developing is not at all in proportion to the cost of administration. As to the question of a fishing patrol, the suggestion of Deputy Mullins is the only way to meet it. I have seen, night after night, foreign trawlers on the south coast coming in close to the shore. Apparently they know exactly where the "Muirchu" is—they have no difficulty in finding out the whereabouts of the patrol boat. The result is that they can poach with impunity. The only solution is to have a number of smaller boats stationed at various points of the coast and make surprise drives in different directions.

Apparently the question of fines is a hopeless one. The Estimates for 1926-27 include a sum of £500 for fines in cases of illegal trawling. In 1925-26 the fines amounted to £11 and in 1926-27 to nothing. Apparently these people pay no fines and some way should be found out of that impasse. If this is allowed to go on there is no use catching them. They simply refuse to pay the fines and go on poaching. The question of the re-valuation of boats has been sufficiently dealt with, but I think that some form of standard boat should be adopted suited for net and line fishing. That is a matter that is worthy of consideration. Many of the boats are too large for the present piers, and I am sure it would be possible, in conference with the fishermen, to arrive at some form of boat that could be used both for net and line fishing.

As to the question of new markets, it is said that £150,000 worth of fish is imported. That is really no indication of the demand for fish. The £150,000 worth of fish is used in a comparatively small portion of the country. If people in the inland towns and country districts had an opportunity of procuring fish the consumption would be trebled. At present fish is brought to the inland towns in a very unsatisfactory way. It is conveyed inland in unsanitary carts. I have seen mackerel when it was three or four days old and in a positively dangerous condition offered for sale. People buy it because they are so anxious to get fish that they run the risk even of being poisoned.

With regard to the question of inland fisheries a terrible amount of damage is being done to the salmon fisheries as a result of the killing of fish in the spawning season. Very little damage is done by poaching in the fishing season. If a man killed a hundred or a thousand salmon he does not do so much damage as if he killed one spawning salmon. The damage done by the destruction of one spawning salmon is appalling. Bailiffs cannot possibly watch the upper waters of the smaller streams and I make this suggestion for what it is worth—it may not be feasible because it may prevent some fish coming up the rivers—but my suggestion is that a grating should be erected on those streams at a certain distance up the river so that the fish can be prevented from going too far up. It is in the upper reaches that the damage is done and if the fish could be prevented going too far up it would be easy to watch the lower portions of the streams. By doing that the terrible destruction of fish now going on could be avoided. I know what it is. I have seen the fish killed literally in hundreds in the spawning season. If the suggestion I have made could be tried it might have the effect of minimising that destruction.

As to the question of tidal waters it is a real grievance that men in the tidal waters in some of the rivers are so limited in their fishing hours. It would do little damage if the time for those men could be extended and if they could be allowed to fish a few hours longer in the weekly close season. Another point is that on the Blackwater at least these men cannot fish until the 1st of February. In some rivers in Ireland fishing opens I think a fortnight before the 1st of February. The complaint these men have is that they lose the most valuable market of the year. I think it is a hardship that they are not allowed to fish before the 1st of February. Ostensibly the reason is that it would prevent the fish reaching the upper waters. The number of fish that would be prevented reaching the upper waters would be infinitesimal and the case of these men should be taken into account.

Before the next Deputy speaks, may I ask if it is intended to conclude this debate before we take Private Members' Business? How long does the Minister require?

If I am to attempt to deal with all the questions raised I should certainly take half an hour.

I have listened with patience to a lot of the criticism of the Department of Fisheries. I say patience because I consider the criticisms are not nearly severe enough. In order to try and show to Deputies who really mean to consider this question seriously and to come to a decision on it, from a serious point of view, I would like to read a few extracts from a Government publication—the Minutes of Evidence taken at the Committee of Public Accounts in examination of the expenditure of that Department under discussion here. I am quoting from the Public Accounts Minutes of Evidence, dated November 25th, 1927. I had in mind at that time the seriousness of the situation that confronted us on account of the continual and perpetual inroads made upon our coasts by foreign trawlers. We are evidently in perfect agreement in all parts of the House that this situation must be tackled immediately and should have been tackled long since. I would like the House to analyse, and sift, and examine, and decide for themselves what this Department is about and find out whether they are playing at it or are really grown-up people trying to do something for a great industry in this country.

I asked a question about the "Muirchu," which I originally knew as the "Helga," and if this cruiser had any guns on board. The answer I got was that they have a gun on board but they do not use it. Sometimes they fire a shot across a foreign trawler's bow to heave her to, but it is a blank shot. I asked where is the item covering expenditure on ammunition and I was told there was not money spent on ammunition because we did not use any ammunition, that we never fired a shot, not even a blank shot. I ask Deputies to read through this and satisfy themselves whether a Department that answers questions put seriously in that manner is acting consistently. I asked here at question 2230: "Have they no target practice of any kind?" but the Chairman intervened and said that the foreign trawlers must be aware of the fact that if they fired it was blank cartridges they would use.

Now with regard to fines, we have heard it admitted that the system of bringing in occasional trawlers and bringing them before a district justice, going through the formality of fining these people and then not collecting the fines, is not going to stop this. Yet, at this particular Committee, I asked the question: "Have you any difficulty in collecting these fines?" and the answer was "Not from the Frenchmen." The Chairman said that this boat is sufficiently impressive to frighten away foreign trawlers, and the answer again is that they are punished severely up to the maximum of the law when we get them. Yet, when we get them and fine them we are not in a position to collect the fine imposed upon them.

I would like the Minister, if he has time, when he replies, to tell the House if his Department really seriously tackled the position of the export of fish from this country. I remember some years ago a situation arising at Stettin, a port in Germany. Stettin buys fish not only for Germany but for distribution to markets in Poland and Russia. At that time the Stettin people who deal in fish were prepared to send a certain number of individuals over to show the fishing people here how to cure fish for export to particular markets. They spoke of what they called a heavy salting for the Russian and Polish markets and a soft salting for the German market. I wonder if the Minister could tell us how much use the Free State Commissioner in Germany has been to his Department for the development of the sale of fish from this country to Germany. I do not know whether he has been in communication with the Minister through his Department or not, but I would like to know if a serious effort has been made to develop the export of fish. Surely to goodness if we spend money on teaching people in certain areas certain industries it would also pay the Department to teach other people how to cure fish properly, provided there was a market for it. The market itself is not so hard to work. I remember bringing from Germany to this country a long, detailed outline of the proposition. All they want to know over there is when a catch is brought in. Of course every season has its own type of fish, but they want to know the extent of the catch, so that they could proceed to give instructions how to cure so many barrels of one particular class and so many barrels of another particular class. They would be able to sell the fish long before it would reach Stettin. I do not know if the Department has done anything at all in that direction. Deputy Moore referred to the same matter, pointed out that there was a huge market available, and that we could never satisfy even Russia.

It has also been remarked that while this Department must require money to develop the industry, in spite of the huge demands made on it the Estimate seems to be cut down every year. It has been suggested that the Minister for Fisheries is anxious to secure more funds but that the Minister for Finance refuses to grant them. There must be some reason for that. If the Minister has time, or cares to answer, I would like him to say if he has made a really strong appeal to the Department of Finance for more funds, to enable him to proceed and develop the industry. If he has asked for funds, will he say if his demand has been turned down? If so, can he state the reason given him as to why it was turned aside? In the event of the Minister not having asked for more funds, I think it is due to this House that it should be told why there was no such demand. Many subjects have been dealt with during the debate, but I would advise Deputies when they get home, seeing that the debate will not conclude to-night, to read the discussions that took place at the Committee of Public Accounts. They could then come back here and ask a few questions or, at least, say that in some respects they were not satisfied with the way this Department has been administered, and that something would have to be done on account of the urgency of the condition of the fishing people in the Twenty-Six-Counties. I would also advise Deputies to read the details in the report regarding loans outstanding by fishermen. Deputies will find there a certain situation which is peculiar only to this Department. I would ask the Minister to tell us frankly if he is hampered because funds that he requires are being refused him, or is he satisfied that reduced expenditure year by year is going to develop the fishing industry, as I am sure he would like to try to develop it.

Like Deputy Daly, I will speak for my own part of the country, which is South Kerry. The Minister said that the fishermen of the Free State, are part-time fishermen. It is no wonder, owing to the difficulty they find in getting boats to engage in deep-sea fishing. I agree with Deputy Davis that the fishermen are not provided with sufficient slips and pier accommodation. There is a deplorable state of affairs in South Kerry in that respect, particularly at Ballinskelligs, where the pier has been washed away, with the result that the fishermen have to carry the fish two hundred yards on their backs. Such methods as that do not tend to enhance the value of the fish. I agree with all the statements that have been made about poaching, so far as South Kerry is concerned. There is one thing that I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to and that is the development of shell fish. There are plenty of oysters and scallops in Kenmare Bay, but I am not aware that the Minister has done anything to develop that particular kind of fishing. Other Deputies said that we are not fish-eaters. We are, but we do not get an opportunity of having fresh fish. Something should be done in that direction. I was in Waterford some years ago, and strange to say when I went into a fish shop there I saw some hake, ling, and codfish and I was told that they came from the coast of Kerry, that they were taken to Swansea and sold there, re-shipped to Waterford, and sold there again. Three Englishmen and one Irishman got their living by that mode of procedure. The man who caught the fish was an Englishman. He took the fish over to Swansea and sold it there. The man who bought it was an Englishman and he reshipped it to Ireland in an English-owned ship. The man in Waterford was the only Irishman who got anything out of it. That is a sad state of affairs.

I would like to say something about rod licences for inland fisheries. I think it is ridiculous to charge £2 for a rod licence when only £3 is charged for a net licence. I know of a particular case where in one haul 140 salmon were killed. They were from 15 to 30 lbs. in weight and were sold at 7/6 per lb., so that about £1,000 was made out of the one haul. The poor fisherman who pays £2 for a rod licence would not get that much money in fifty years. Still the net pays only £3, while the poor fisherman pays £2. I think if the licence were reduced to 10/- poaching would not be carried on to such an extent, because it would be to the interests of the fishermen to maintain the salmon and trout supply, and every fisherman would then act as a bailiff. With respect to these nets at the mouths of rivers, there should be £50 put on each of them. There is a weir in my part of the country and it pays a licence of only £30. I suppose I will be told that the £2 has to be imposed on the fishermen for the protection of the rivers. Whom are they protecting the rivers for? The landlords. They are the people who get the benefit; ninety-nine per cent. of the men engaged in fishing do not get the benefit.

It was arranged that Private Members' Business would come on at 9.30. Is it intended to proceed with that?

I understand that a schedule was drawn up by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, under which something like three hours and forty minutes were allowed for this Vote. I think that we have exceeded that time, and in order to get finished I would like to know if Deputy Everett would be prepared to give way until 10 o'clock.

I agree to that.

Níl morán leár againn.

I could not possibly reply in less than twenty minutes.

If Deputy Everett is going to give way at all perhaps he would give way until Friday. The vaccination question will go into Friday as it is.

I am prepared to do that.

We will take the order as adjourned until Friday.

Mr. O'REILLY

There is a place in my part of the country where a certain gentleman can kill fish in the month of January. If I killed fish there in that month I would be fined £50. I think by-laws should be introduced by the Minister to make this time of the year an open season for all or to make it a close season for that man. It is black fish in my case, but white fish in his. It is ridiculous to see one man there having a monopoly of fishing during the whole month of January, while nobody else can fish at all, even with a licence. There is a lake which is open to one man in January. If he lands a fish there it is a white fish, but if I land a fish it is a black fish, and I am fined £50. I hope the Minister will benefit by the criticisms heard here to-night.

What a hope!

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá mar gheall ar iascaireacht. An chéad iascaireacht a labhrós mé air, is iascaireacht ar na lochaí, mar is maith liom mola dhéanamh ar dtús agus an sciolla dc thabhairt 'na dhiaidh sin. Anois, mar gheall ar na teachtaí seo do labhair ar shaighde sna haibhneachaí, is duine de Bhord Caomhnóirí an Iascaigh mise im' cheanntar féin. Tá ar a laighead trí scór mílte aibhneachaí fúinne le haire thabhairt dóibh le ceathair no cúig de bhliantaibh. Thaisbeánmuid do sna daoiní thart timcheall na lochaí gur dá mhéid iasc a bheadh sna lochaí gur amla is mó a shaorthóid siad san airgead ortha. Anois, go bhfuil chuile dhuine ag tabhairt congnamh dhúinn le haire thabhairt dóibh is go bhféadfa mé rá, buidheachas chuig na daoine, nách bhfuil blas de shaighde dhá dhéanamh sa cheanntar seo againn-ne agus is maith liom leis sin buidheachas a thabhairt don Aire faoi an gcomhnamh atá sé ag tabhairt dúinn.

Anois mar gheall ar iascach na fairrge. Féachfad le cimeád leis an rud ar is ceanntar Chontae na Gaillimhe. Tá cainnt mhór faoi bháid mhóra agus faoi shiopaí éisc agus a leithéidí sin ag na teachtaí atá ar an dtaobh thall, ach níor chuala mé focal uatha ag mola na mbád mbeag. Níl faitchíos orm-sa a rá nách ó na báid bheaga is lugha a gheobhfaidh duine luach a bhéile. Anois, ba mhaith liom a mhola don Aire Airgid agus don Aire Iascaigh congnamh an dá lámh do thabhairt do dhream na mbád mbeag so. Tá a leithéidí in Arann agus i gConnamara go bhfuil cúpla eangach scadán agus traimilí agus luach ropaí agus mar sin ag teastáil uatha. Ba cheart iasacht airgid thabhairt dóibh chun so do réiteacht, agus tá súil agam, agus tá fhios agam, go dtabharfaidh an tAire Airgid an congnamh so dóibh mar chuile chongnamh a d'iarr mé air le réasún thug sé dhúinn-ne é. Anois mar gheall ar iascach na ngliomach, ní mór gach congnamh is féidir do thabhairt do sna hiascairí chun na gliomach do chur ar an marga chó saor agus is féidir é. Sidé an congnamn a dhéanfaidh maitheas do sna daoiní. Rudaí beaga mar sin a chabhrós linn, agus ní rudaí móra ná tiocfadh maith ar bith asta.

Iascach eile ba mhaith liom mola dhéanamh air—iascach na néistrí agus na muiríní. Eistrí Chuain na Gaillimhe in aice le hOileán Eide. Iascach eistrí agus muiríní Chuain Chill Chiaráin agus Chuain na Beirtrí Buidhe. Tá fear sa teach so, Máirtín Mac Donnchadha, ag a bhfuil níos mó eolas ná atá agam-sa in eistrí agus deir seisean go dtiocfadh maith asta agus ba mhaith liom go gcuimhneoch an tAire ar an méid sin. Maidir leis an gceilp is báid bheaga arís atá i gceist. Seadh, cheannuigh mise in aon bhliain amháin, aimsear an chogaidh mhóir, luach naoi míle púnt agus d'íoc mé an méid sin as mo lámh féin d'airgead Mháirtín Mhic Dhonnchadha, duine de Theachtaí an tighe seo. Níl súil leis an méid sin in aon bhliain amháin arís ach dá bhfaghmís cuid de féin ar an mbliain seo dhéanfadh sé maitheas mór. Rudaí eile atá ag teastáil le haghaidh na mbád mbeag staideanna i go leor áiteacha. Ní ceann ná péire ach go leor aca. Le n-a chliú féin do thabhairt don Aire thug sé congnamh dúinn cúpla ceann aca so do thógáil agus cuireadh iad san áit 'na raibh siad ag teastáil. Ní mar rinne lucht Shasana iad a chur in áit ná raibh siad ag teastáil. Maidir leis na báid mhóra. Is maith liom go bhfuil an tAire ag cur báid mhóra go Cuan na Gaillimhe agus go Cuan an Chloiginn le dul roimh na scadáin agus ag tabhairt stróinséirí chughainn le taisbeáint duinn cé an bealach 'na ndéanfaidís iascach scadán in áiteacha eile. Ceapaim-se gur ciscéim é seo sa bhealach cheart. Is fearr dhúinn chuile congnaimh thabhairt don rud atá ann ná bheith ag iarraidh an iomarca nua. Anois faoi Chumann na nIasgairí. Ba cheart go mbeadh fhios agam rud eicínt faoi so mar is ar mo ghuth a cuireadh ar bun é sa Mansion House agus ar mo ghuth do cuireadh an chéad uachtarán riamh ar a bhun—an tAthair de Faoite as Cloch na Rón. Ní rabhmuid a bhfad leis gur tháinig na daoine móra agus go ndubhairt siad "níol fhios tada agaibh-se faoi iascach." Cuirfe míd múinteoir as Coláiste na Tríonóide agus leas-Chornéil airm ghá stíura. Sid iad na sórt daoine atá anois ag cainnt ar iascach. Go bhfóiridh Dia ar na hiascairí faoi a leithéidí. Nách deas an mac é an saol nuair ná fuil ag na hiascairí ach múinteoir as Coláiste na Trionóide agus an léas-Chornéil. Go gcabhraí Dia ortha ach ba cheart cuimhniú, an té a bhíonn sa mhaga go mbíonn an leath fé féin.

Mr. WHITE

I heard a statement made recently that the speed of the "Muirchu" is only about ten knots, while the speed of the average trawler is from twelve to fourteen knots. If this statement is not correct it should be cleared up by the Minister. I have gone over the whole matter on several occasions and have criticised the Department. The main points which I formerly made, and about which I complained, have not yet been dealt with. I submit that one cruiser is insufficient to protect the fisheries on the Saorstát coastline, and no attempt has been made to provide a second one. I contended, and still contend, that there should be a cruiser with its base either in Lough Swilly or Killybegs to patrol the northern coastline, and another one elsewhere to patrol the southern coastline. These matters have been previously discussed in detail on several occasions, and I do not intend to delay the Dáil any longer. As I say, the statement has recently been made through a source which I consider to be reliable that the speed of the "Muirchu" is only ten knots. If that is the case, that vessel is wholly inadequate to cope with poaching trawlers.

Ní dó liom go bhfuil aon mhaith ann leanúint don chainnt seo. Is dó liom ná fuil Roinn den Rialtas go bhfuil na daoine coitianta chomh mí-shásta léi agus mar tá siad leis an Roinn seo. Do réir gach comhartha, tá an tAire mí-shásta leis fhéin. Is é tuairim na ndaoine ná fuil sé i ndáiríribh no, dá mbeadh, go mbeadh a mhalairt de scéal ann i dtaobh na hiascaireachta indiu. Is léir ná fuil an tAire i ndáiríribh no, ma tá, nách bhfuil an stuaim ceart aige i gcóir na hoibre seo. Tá daoine ann do chur suim sa gceist seo na hiascaireachta fadó agus bé an soisgéal do chraobhscaoil siad ná nách raibh aon ghnó eile ach ceist na talmhan chó mór leis an gceist seo. Is é an truagh is mó go mbaineann sé le slighe bheatha na ndaoine is boichte agus is uaisle sa tír —muinntear na Gaeltachta.

Nuair a thug an tAire an meastachán seo isteach ní raibh aige ó thúis deire act leith-scéal—leith-scéal i dtaobh long cosanta, leith-scéal ná dearnadh seo agus ná dearnadh siúd. Dubhairt duine éigin go rabhamar ag tromaíocht ar an Aire nuair a chuireamar i gcomparáid le chéile an méid airgid do caitheadh ar thuarastal agus ar chostaisí eile mar sin agus an méid oibre do rinneadh. Do caitheadh os cionn £27,000 ar thuarastal agus ar chostaisí dár leithéid sin agus níor caitheadh acht £24,000 chun na hiascaireachta do chur chun chinn. Caithfidh gach duine admháil ná fuil cothrom na féinne dá thabhairt don iascaireacht agus an scéal a bheith mar sin. Ach rud níos measa ná san, níor caitheadh an méid a bhí leagtha amach i gcóir na hoibre seo. Tá sin le feiceál go soiléir 'sna Appropriation Accounts. Níl sé de leith-scéal ag an Aire nách raibh an tairgead le fáil aige. Do bhí an tairgead ar fáil acht níor chaith sé é. Agus isé an fáth nár chaith sé é nách raibh a Roinn in-an an obair do stiúrú. Sin é mo thuairim fhéin.

Tá brón in ar gcroidhthe nuair a smaoinimíd ar an gceist seo. Acht taimíd chun cúram eile do chur ar an Aire seo—cúram roinnt na talmhan agus cúram na Gaeltachta. Tá sé in ár nintinn ár vótaí do caitheadh in aghaidh an mheastacháin seo chun a thaisbeáint go bhfuilimíd mí-shásta leis—gurab é ár dtuairim, agus ár dtuairim láidir, nách féidir an obair seo do chur chun cinn agus an tAire seo a bheith os a cionn.

Dubhairt an Teachta atá tar éis suidhe síos go raibh seisean agus gach duine mí-shásta leis an Aire. Dubhairt sé ná rabhas ndáiríribh. Toghadh mé i gCondae ina bhfuil a lán iascairí agus is mó is fiú a dtuairim sin ar cheist na hiascaireachta agus ar gach rud a bhaineas léithí ná tuairim an teachta. Do dhin na teachtaí ar an taobh eile tromaíocht orm agus chuireadar milleán orm. Bheadh iontas orm dá bhfaghainn aon nídh on dtaobh eile acht milleán agus tromaíocht. Is é sin an rud is mó a thaithníonn liom on dtaobh eile, mar is moladh é, dar liom-sa.

To review in detail all the matters that have been raised in the course of the debate would take up practically all of the remaining time. A great many matters have been raised that really would be more suitable for parliamentary questions than for a debate on Estimates. Before I go on to deal in detail with the matters raised by the different Deputies I will pick out some of those most canvassed. Amongst others, Deputy de Valera referred to the cost of administration as against the cost of development. If the Deputy and other Deputies who spoke looked at the reports of the debates in former years they would have seen that the same matters were raised and the same answers were given. I think I invited Deputy Redmond last year to look at the book of Estimates and see exactly what Estimates are for. A book of Estimates in any country normally contains Estimates for paying public services. Only in three or four Estimates in this book is there any provision for development. When one talks of the amount spent in, say, one given year, as canvassed by Deputy de Valera, and that the amount allotted was not spent, one must realise that it was not spent because it was not applied for, or because the persons applying were not able to fulfil the conditions on which loans were granted. The conditions are these: An applicant informs the Department that he requires a loan for a particular type of boat and gear. The form is sent to me. In addition to his own signature he has to provide for two sureties. In the past four or five years many fishermen found it extremely difficult to get persons to go security for them, because fishermen had been at a fairly low ebb. They had been failing in their liability for some time past. Some sureties had been pressed for payment, so that other persons in the locality, being aware of that fact, were not quite prepared to give their names as security. That is the explanation of the fact that in some given year the whole amount voted was not spent. Following on that, some Deputies spoke more about the re-valuation of boats than about any other subject. The Bill happens to be with the draftsman, but the fact is that no fisherman has suffered because the Bill has not become law. He has, indeed, probably gained by that fact, because there has been no pressure on these fishermen to repay anything. When the Bill becomes law, and when their actual liabilities are shown to them, it will be the duty of the Department to insist on the repayment of the annual established arrears outstanding. That means that in a case where a person has borrowed £600 and has paid back, as has happened in many cases, only £40 or £50, under the Re-casting of Loans Bill, when it becomes law, such person will be liable to repay, perhaps, £300 or £400. It will be the duty of the Department to insist that either he or his sureties will start to discharge their liability to the State.

The Minister states that the reason why the full amount was not expended on fishery development in 1926-27 was because a sufficient number of applications for loans was not received. That is not the explanation given by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It is entirely different.

I have not his report before me but I know that that has been the case, namely, that fishermen found it difficult to get sureties in compliance with the regulations—two sureties for each loan.

But the explanation given by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is that certain schemes for branding and fish-curing were not put into operation.

I understood that the amount was in regard to loans. These matters are quite easily explained. There are certain moneys voted every year which normally are not used but which are voted for emergency purposes. For instance, in case of a glut of fish when perhaps no curers would be at hand, if we had stocks of salt or barrels, we make provision for that. In normal years the money is not expended, and we usually hope that it will not be expended, because it is not a healthy sign.

I do not want to be interrupting the Minister unduly, but he will see in the Estimates that out of a total of £24,000 only £400 is set aside for fish curing. Surely that is not the explanation.

There are fishing operations mentioned there as well— £2,000. That is, the provision might be for experimental purposes as well as to meet emergency occasions. The next point on which there was a great deal of discussion was on the organisation of fishermen. It was chiefly at the request of the fishermen's organisation that the Fishery Conference was held, and the Fishermen's Association's accredited representative at the Conference was their Chairman. Recommendation No. 13 of the Fishery Conference was to the effect that a grant-in-aid be made to the Fishermen's Association or other approved body for the organisation of fishermen. Following that recommendation, I discussed the matter with the Chairman of the Fishermen's Association, and we agreed on a certain scheme which was to be submitted by the Chairman of the Association to his Committee. He agreed, mind you, on the terms with which we were to deal with this business, and it is untrue to say that I wanted actually to command the Fishermen's Association or to take complete control of it, because, in fact, the Chairman of the new Committee was to be the Chairman of the Fishermen's Association. That is, the Fishermen's Association would have their own Chairman as Chairman of the new Committee, and they would elect three persons, and there were to be three independent persons, not persons out of my Department, who would act on my nomination. The Fishermen's Association have not agreed to that so far. There is no dispute between myself and the Fishermen's Association, and there is no matter for arbitration. That is the position.

I would like to ask the Minister did he not lay it down as a condition that his Department would have to nominate the majority of the Committee and also the organisers?

No. I have just said that I was to nominate three and that the Chairman of the Fishermen's Association was to be Chairman of the new body, which was to be the governing organisation for the fishermen.

I would like to ask if that is the particular condition to which the Fishermen's Association objected?

I do not know what they objected to. I have dealt already with references to the state of our loans. On the one hand, one Deputy looks with disapproving eyes at the state of our loans while, on the other hand, he would advocate further loans, or most of the persons on his side of the House would advocate further loans. Our loan position is in a very bad way because of the leniency of the Department, which is so much decried, towards fishermen. Realising that the position of the fishermen during the past five or six years has been difficult, the Department has been extremely lenient in the collection of loans, and has given time until the arrears have gone up to between £135,000 and £140,000. That is the state of our loans. We are criticised for that position at the Public Accounts Committee, while we are criticised here because we have been so severe in collecting them.

Two or three Deputies referred to a change in the weekly close season. I made a note of it here. I think it was the netting at the mouths of streams. That is, of course, a statutory matter and would require legislation to change it. I think it was Deputy Little said it was going to increase the amount of our salmon. That could not possibly be so. The reason why the weekly close season law was originally made was to allow the salmon a chance to get up to spawn. Perhaps I misunderstood Deputy Little.

I also mentioned the closing of the season at an earlier period. That would help the salmon.

You are now talking about the annual close season. I thought you referred also to the weekly close season, and other Deputies asked for a change in that.

I did not.

We would have to bring in legislation to do so, and I do not think it would be desirable. There has been an improvement in the fishing for the past few years as a result of the very careful protection given to the spawning fish. I do not wish to gamble with the situation until a few more years pass by and we have good stocks of salmon in the rivers. It might be then time to consider a relaxation of the restrictions in some directions. Some Deputies raised the question of building piers and slips, and I think it was Deputy Law who wanted to know what was our intention in connection with the Board of Works in the matter, because there is also an item for marine works in the Vote for the Board of Works. The Board of Works consults us when proposals about marine works are suggested to them. They usually deal with the bigger works, such as the Rathmullen scheme, in the County Donegal. There is work there which will cost about £10,000, and we have intimated to the County Council that if they put up £5,000 we would be prepared to recommend the Department of Finance to put up the other £5,000. The Board of Works would deal entirely with that. Our Vote is for a very small type of marine works, like clearing a harbour, building small slips for running off boats, and so on.

I think it was Deputy Mullins complained about the big stretch of his constituency being without a pier or slip. If there is any constituency in Ireland where there is a glut of piers or slips it is West Cork. There may be places in addition where a further one might be desirable, but at any rate a fairly strong case would have to be put up before we could agree to building new ones, where you have a slip here, and there is a demand for another slip half a mile further on.

Will the Minister come down there for a week and I will with the greatest of pleasure show him places where slips are badly needed? There is no demand for a slip within half a mile of another slip.

Normally, before we recommend the Department of Finance to give a grant for a new pier or slip we try to get a guarantee of its being a genuine demand by asking for a contribution from the County Council. Deputy Kilroy and Deputy Davis complained very grievously about our ill-treatment of County Mayo. In fact, the Mayo Council has been the least satisfactory County Council in Ireland to deal with. They are not prepared to give a halfpenny towards any marine work, even where the State is putting up fifty-fifty.

Might I ask the Minister who built the piers heretofore and maintained them, and at what date did it devolve on the County Council to pay for them and be responsible for the maintenance of them?

If we go back to history we will never get finished. The proposition for Belderg was this: the estimated cost for doing the works there which are required, and very badly required, and it is work that I would very much like to see done because there is a very good type of fisherman there, is £1,600. We offered to put up £800. The County Council declined absolutely at first, and now they say they will maintain them. That is not meeting us at all.

I do not like to interrupt the Minister again, but I would like him to remember that we do not want to undertake responsibility that was not ours heretofore. You want us to undertake responsibility for maintaining the piers in addition to undertaking responsibility for building them. We consider that unreasonable.

Responsibility for a new pier was never actually anyone's responsibility. It was neither the County Council's nor my Department's responsibility. The Deputy must remember he is dealing with new work. As a guarantee for the genuineness of this demand we expect that the local people will put up their contribution.

How long after the guarantee would the Minister undertake to do the work? I have a case where a guarantee was given four months ago and the work has not been begun.

Hold on a minute now. Normally there is a condition that it is the County Council's engineers who must do the work. We have only one engineer altogether in our Department.

That is the trouble.

The County Council, in addition to putting up this contribution, looks after the work. We pay on our engineer's certificate that the work is finished according to specification. In opening the debate Deputy Anthony made some references to our proposals to get a fish market going in Cork and to get persons to come into the trawling business. He seemed to gather from what I have said, that the persons in Cork to whom I sent Doctor Schweiger were persons in the trade in Cork. That is not so. I sent him to the Cork Industrial Development Association, persons with money presumably who are interested in the development of Cork, and they turned down the business. I did not send him to any person in the trade, so there was no question of his being sent to persons who would be rivals in this business.

The Deputy also referred to inland fishermen and to the giving of ova to unorganised people, where yearlings and fry should be given. We do not give ova to unorganised people. We normally give fry, but we do not give ova except where they have hatcheries where they can hatch them out. It would be ridiculous to give ova to persons who have no facilities for hatching them out. Deputy Anthony also referred to propaganda against poisoning and he does not think the law is sufficiently severe. When that legislation was going through the House in 1924 the Deputies who then sat on the Benches now occupied by Deputy Anthony and his colleagues, that is, the Labour Party, thought very strongly to the contrary. They thought that nearly all the penalties under the 1924 and 1925 Acts were far too severe. The penalty for poisoning, as a matter of fact, is very severe—£50, with a possibility of twelve months in jail as well. I do not think you can go much further than that from the point of view of increasing the penalty, and as far as propaganda against poisoning is concerned the person who will resort to poisoning is not a person likely to be very much convinced by propaganda.

Deputy Kilroy had some interesting figures. In connection with my statement, that we give more direct help to fishermen than is given in England or Scotland, he quoted some figures of 1921 and 1924 as against that. The Deputy referred to a two-million vote by the British Government in 1921 for fishermen. Two millions were guaranteed to curers, and it was somewhat similar to a sum voted by the French Government out of German Reparations. The idea was to recompense fishermen who had been taken away from their calling during the European War for mine-sweeping and one thing or another, and the two millions were put up in England as a guarantee to curers to cover their losses. In France something similar was put up. In fact, £1,750,000 was a dead loss to the State.

If you like I will quote for you what was said about it in the British Official Reports at the time. "The former, however, was in the case of the French mainly a post-war settlement measure. It resulted in a loss of over £1,750,000." Here is what the Official Report says:

"The whole transaction would have evoked severe criticism but for the fact Parliament realised the great service rendered by the fishing industry during the War." That was the position with regard to the two millions which was portion of the German Reparations utilised to re-start fishermen taken away from their calling, to enable them to get back to fishing. With regard to the £150,000 voted in 1924 to the Scottish fishermen, the conditions under which that sum was voted were that each applicant would have to put up an equal sum to that for which he applied, and, in fact, out of the £150,000 only £8,000 was spent, because the fishermen were unable to apply under these conditions.

I am afraid I cannot agree with Deputy O'Connell that any Government Department could go in successfully for running fish shops. We did, as a matter of fact, attempt to persuade certain persons to undertake the selling of fish under decent conditions in certain towns in the Midlands— Mullingar, Longford, Athlone, and so on. We had almost got the consent of Lipton's, who have different branch shops in the Midlands, to put up fish slabs and go into the business. At the last moment the Irish manager, who was prepared to help us in that way, was turned down by the English directorate; they did not want, as they called it, to mix up fish with their teas and the rest of it. We then attempted to get some of the ordinary business shops in these towns to take it on. We were prepared to present them with the marble slabs, but we failed to get any co-operation in that direction. As a matter of fact when you know that there is so much fish imported into the Midlands it is not so much shops we want as a regular supply of fresh fish. A great deal of the imported fish is tinned fish.

Is that offer to supply the marble slabs still open?

If I thought there was a possibility I would again place the matter before Finance.

What happened the Cork Fish Market?

I told the House this evening. Perhaps the Deputy was not here then.

You came with the fish, did you not?

I can understand some accents, but really the Deputy's beats me. Deputy Law apparently did not quite understand what I said with regard to the reduction in the development section. I pointed out that £1,000 is explained by the transfer of responsibility for contribution to the Galway Bay Steam Ship Company from our Department to the Department of Industry and Commerce; and another £1,855 is explained by the fact that we need no longer subsidise most Boards of Conservators regarding inland fisheries. That is owing to the operations of the 1925 Act, under which they now get the proceeds of rod licences, to which Deputy O'Reilly objects so much, and the rates imposed on drift-net fishermen.

Deputy Law has referred to the homespun industry, and he wanted to know whether we were to confine it to the one area or extend it. Our intention at the moment is to confine it to the one. It is time enough when that has got on its feet to think about spreading it to Falcarragh.

Perhaps the Inspector would see what could be done in the meantime?

I think the Deputy will find if the Inspector has not been there already that he will be there in a very short time. The question of kelp and an iodine factory has been raised also. It is only a few weeks since I explained the position, and it has not changed in the meantime. A certain proposition is before Finance with regard to the iodine factory. It is not something that we need throw our hats in the air about, as being something extraordinarily great. It will only provide for about twelve hundred tons of kelp in the year. The particular persons who are interested in the factory are French people, and they will be governed in what they use there by, of course, the world demand for iodine, which is limited and which is, to a very great extent, a very controlled market.

The Minister speaks of certain people interested in the factory being French. Does that mean it is to be run by a French firm, or will it have State backing?

There will be Irish capital as well. Deputy Moore apparently expected me to make a two hours' speech when introducing the Vote. I did so in 1926, and was glad to hear from the Deputy that he read the words of wisdom I spoke on that occasion. I believe I would have been well advised to have done this year what I did in 1926 because the three hours which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges allotted for the debate on the Estimate for my Department has been lengthened into nearly five and a half hours. Most of the questions asked by Deputy Moore could be dealt with by way of Parliamentary Question and Answer.

For example?

One question that the Deputy asked was: Could I give any explanation of the cause of the decay in the fishing industry?— a decay, as I explained, that is not confined to this country only. One of the causes for that is that the price paid for fish to-day is only about ten per cent. above the pre-war or 1914 price, whereas the price of boats, gear and articles used in the getting of fish have gone up by something like 100 per cent. That is one reason, but the principal reason is the loss of the Russian market for cured herrings.

Deputy Moore, referring to the loss of the Russian Market, asked if it was because I had some grievance against the Soviet Government that this was happening. I can assure the Deputy that I am as anxious as he to get the Soviet Government back to buy our herrings. The fact is that the Russians are now trying to develop their own herring fisheries. That is one cause for the loss of the Russian market. The second is that it was mostly the peasant population in Russia that consumed our herrings, and apparently they are not in a financial position to pay for them now. Germany was also referred to. The Germans provide our really great market. They are always anxious to get our herrings. Deputy Briscoe asked if we had a trade representative in Germany. I was glad to hear the Deputy advocate an extension of our Department of External Affairs. We have no trade representative in Germany at present. The position with regard to our trade in Germany is this: that our herrings realised 128/- a barrel there last year, while Scotch herrings, caught at the same time, only realised 68/- a barrel. That is to say, our herrings realised £3 a barrel more than the Scotch cured herring. As far as Germany is concerned, we need have no anxiety because we have a good market there and there is always a good demand for our herrings.

Could the Minister say what was the value of the fish exported to Germany in any particular year?

I have not the figures with me at the moment, but they are usually given in the trade returns. That is the type of inquiry that could be dealt with by way of Parliamentary Question and Answer.

The Minister stated that at the present time the Russians, for the reasons he indicated, are not buying our fish, but the position is that most of the fish bought by the Germans is going into Russia at present.

Perhaps.

Then it is not quite accurate for the Minister to say that the Russians are not buying our herrings?

No; they are not buying directly now. Deputy Moore also wanted to know something about our institutions. So far as the Army supply is concerned I know it is required that Irish fish shall be supplied. I cannot give any guarantee that the fish they get is Irish. If the question had been raised by the ordinary way of Parliamentary Question—this is one of the examples the Deputy wanted—I could have found out from the Minister for Defence, or the Quartermaster-General, as to what supplies and guarantees they required. In the fishing tenders about a year or two ago the person tendering was required to state that the fish was Irish caught. As far as convents and other institutions are concerned, they will buy their fish wherever they like and from whomever they like.

resumed the Chair.

As the Fishing Department is a semi-trading department I thought it would be one of its functions to canvass these institutions for orders.

I do not think so. I never understood that it was one of the functions of my Department to canvass on behalf of firms. We have a lot of functions, but not that of a commercial traveller. Deputy Moore grumbled about my gloom. I assure the Deputy that his speech was far more gloomy than mine. The speeches generally were a bit of a wail, and much on the lines taken in the Gaeltacht debate— that is, everyone had a poor mouth on behalf of the fishermen, no one trying to put a bit of backbone into him. You can overdo the poor mouth business. Debates of this kind do not help the Fishery Department to get back arrears of loans. The Department has been extremely lenient in connection with the loans, and we have continued as far as possible to be lenient, but at the same time once this Re-casting of Loans Bill becomes law the Department will have to see that under the new bargain, with the new concession on the original loan, there will be no evading of liability. Deputy Mongan rightly said that the most helpful thing was to help the small man, who always repays much better than the people who get bigger loans, because he is in a position to repay. Small works in isolated places, which help a man to bring in his boat instead of leaving it at the mercy of the rocks, are extremely helpful to the part-time man, and better than going into a big thing, such as trawler development. The small things are really helpful.

What immediate measures does the Minister propose to take on recommendation 13 of the Gaeltacht Commission—that is, as to the giving of grants-in-aid?

I have given that information. An offer has been agreed upon between myself and the Chairman of the Fishermen's Association.

Question put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 75; Níl, 44.

  • William P. Aird.
  • Ernest Henry Alton.
  • Richard Anthony.
  • James Walter Beckett.
  • George Cecil Bennett.
  • Ernest Blythe.
  • Séamus A. Bourke.
  • Michael Brennan.
  • Henry Broderick.
  • Seán Brodrick.
  • John Joseph Byrne.
  • Edmund Carey.
  • Archie J. Cassidy.
  • James Coburn.
  • John James Cole.
  • Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
  • Martin Conlon.
  • Michael P. Connolly.
  • Bryan Ricco Cooper.
  • William T. Cosgrave.
  • James Crowley.
  • John Daly.
  • William Davin.
  • Michael Davis.
  • Peter de Loughrey.
  • Edward Doyle.
  • Peadar Seán Doyle.
  • Edmund John Duggan.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
  • D.J. Gorey.
  • Alexander Haslett.
  • John J. Hassett.
  • Michael R. Heffernan.
  • Michael Joseph Hennessy.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Mark Henry.
  • Patrick Hogan (Galway).
  • Richard Holohan.
  • Michael Jordan.
  • Myles Keogh.
  • Hugh Alexander Law.
  • Finian Lynch.
  • Arthur Patrick Mathews.
  • Martin McDonogh.
  • Michael Og McFadden.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Joseph W. Mongan.
  • Daniel Morrissey.
  • Richard Mulcahy.
  • James E. Murphy.
  • Joseph Xavier Murphy.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Martin Michael Nally.
  • John Thomas Nolan.
  • Thomas J. O'Connell.
  • Bartholomew O'Connor.
  • Daniel O'Leary.
  • Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
  • Gearoid O'Sullivan.
  • John Marcus O'Sullivan.
  • Patrick Reynolds.
  • Vincent Rice.
  • Martin Roddy.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
  • William Edward Thrift.
  • Michael Tierney.
  • Daniel Vaughan.
  • John White.
  • George Wolfe.
  • Jasper Travers Wolfe.

Níl

  • Frank Aiken.
  • Denis Allen.
  • Gerald Boland.
  • Patrick Boland.
  • Seán Brady.
  • Robert Briscoe.
  • Daniel Buckley.
  • Patrick Clancy.
  • James Colbert.
  • Eamon Cooney.
  • Martin John Corry.
  • Fred. Hugh Crowley.
  • Thomas Derrig.
  • Eamon de Valera.
  • James Everett.
  • Frank Fahy.
  • Hugo Flinn.
  • Andrew Fogarty.
  • Patrick J. Gorry.
  • John Goulding.
  • Samuel Holt.
  • Patrick Houlihan.
  • Stephen Jordan.
  • Michael Joseph Kennedy.
  • James Joseph Killane.
  • Mark Killilea.
  • Michael Kilroy.
  • Seán F. Lemass.
  • Patrick John Little.
  • Thomas McEllistrim.
  • Seán MacEntee.
  • Séamus Moore.
  • Thomas Mullins.
  • Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
  • Seán T. O'Kelly.
  • Matthew O'Reilly.
  • Thomas O'Reilly.
  • Thomas P. Powell.
  • James Ryan.
  • Martin Sexton.
  • Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
  • Patrick Smith.
  • Richard Walsh.
  • Francis C. Ward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Progress ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Top
Share