Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1930

Vol. 34 No. 1

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 54—Fisheries and Gaeltacht Services—(Resumed).

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £28,270 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, 1931, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tailte agus Iascaigh agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na bOifige sin.
That a sum not exceeding £28,270 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, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, and of certain Services administered by that Office.—(Minister for Finance.)
Debate resumed on amendment:—
That the Estimate be referred back for re-consideration.—(Deputy Derrig.)

On Friday last I was endeavouring to put an end to the uninterrupted slumbers of the Fisheries Department. I hope what I said on that occasion will be taken to heart by the Minister. It seems rather extraordinary, when we remember that the Minister for Fisheries is also Minister for Lands, that the strange state of affairs on the River Blackwater continues to exist. Although four Land Acts have been passed by the Party opposite in the last seven years, in connection with each of which they boasted that they were getting rid of landlordism, still we have the strange state of affairs existing there that the tenants who are paying rent for half the river are not allowed the fishing rights. Despite the fact that two Acts were passed which were supposed to give them the fishing rights, within the last three months the landlords were enabled to get an injunction in the High Court against these tenants to prevent them from going within seventeen feet of the river. I echo Deputy Daly's hope that the Minister will do something in connection with this matter. These tenants have carried on a long fight, and compulsory Land Acts have been introduced to compel them to purchase, whether they liked it or not. Those rights are now going to be filched away from them by a so-called national Government. However, I have a warm corner in my heart for the Minister for Fisheries —I think he is the best of a bad lot. I do not believe he is asleep himself, but I hope he will wake up his Department and try and get them out of that uninterrupted slumber which they have been in for seven years.

I hope Deputies who made complaints two years ago, and whose complaints I listened to again during last week, will give up the rôle of coming here every year and making some complaints and then walking into the Lobby after the Minister for Fisheries and voting for his Estimate. The only way in which they can get any satisfaction is by showing the Minister that there is a limit to their endurance and not be coming here year after year with the same complaint. I hope these Deputies will have the backbone to go into the Lobby and vote against this Estimate and prove, when they come here and make complaints, that they will not ignore those complaints themselves by voting for the Estimate. I hope we shall hear Deputy Carey, for instance, at some length in connection with these matters. I had hoped that this Estimate would be left to a free vote of the House. I am sorry it is not. Of course, when the whip is cracked Deputies on the other side have to obey the Party Whip.

There is a proverb which states that hope deferred maketh the heart sick. I think that this maxim applies very aptly to the people of the Gaeltacht generally and to fishermen in particular. Year after year, when this Vote has been before the House, promises have been made and hopes inspired in the breasts of the fishermen and, as time went on, these hopes have been blighted. This Vote has been referred to as the "Annual Estimate for Fisheries and Gaeltacht Services." A more appropriate name for it would be "the annual Estimate for excuses and unfulfilled promises," because the fishermen themselves believe that a cran full of performances is worth a trawler load of promises. Up to the present there have been only promises. The fishermen are sick, sore, and tired listening to these promises which have been unfulfilled.

It is my intention to vote for the motion that this Estimate be referred back for further consideration, in the hope that the Minister for Finance will allocate more money to this Department in order to carry out in an efficient manner the Gaeltacht services, and also to endeavour to improve the fisheries. My principal reason for voting in that manner is because I believe the amount we are asked to vote is insignificant in comparison with the amount required, if we desire to place the fishing industry on a sound basis. The total amount of this Vote is £47.270, and that is both for fisheries and Gaeltacht services. Upon examination we find that £29,241 is swallowed in salaries, wages, allowances, and travelling and office expenses. That means that approximately 61 per cent. of the money is swallowed up in administration expenses, and the amount left for the development of fisheries and rural industries is comparatively small. According to the Estimate, the amount to be spent on sea fisheries is only £5,050, and on inland fisheries £4,810, making a total of only £9,860. That is only approximately half the amount which the House voted last year for the sea and inland fisheries. I think no Deputy will have the audacity to say that since last year the position of the people in the Gaeltacht area or of the fishermen on the seaboard has improved. I believe that fishing, like agriculture, is a vital industry here. If agriculture as an industry were to collapse, it would be the duty of the State to step in, and what is true of agriculture should also be true of the fishing industry. So far as the fishing industry is concerned, it cannot stand still; it must either advance or decline. Statistics which I shall put before the House will prove that the move, as far as the fishing industry is concerned, has been a retrograde one. There is an old saying, which I believe the Minister for Agriculture believes in, that humanity should be led back to the land. I believe that if humanity should be led back to the land we should not at the same time forget the potential wealth hidden in the sea, which, if the fishing industry was organised in a proper way, would help to improve the position of the fishermen and the people in the Gaeltacht. The fishing industry is not only an industrial problem; it is also a human problem. There are thousands of people depending upon it; some of them partly and some of them exclusively.

When we come to review the position of the fishing industry we find that it has declined to a very considerable extent. Upon looking up statistics I find that a century ago there were 65,000 fishermen engaged in the industry. According to the Gaeltacht Report, issued a few years ago, there were only 1,000 full-time and some 9,000 part-time fishermen engaged in the industry. Of that comparatively small number the majority are in a state of poverty. Many of them have to go to Scotland and to the Shetland Islands to supplement their very meagre earnings. If we compare the imports of fish into this country with the exports from the country for the past two years we will find that, instead of the fishing industry and the economic position of the fishermen improving, the reverse is the fact. So far as imports of fish into the country are concerned, we find that in 1928 there was imported into the country fish to the value of £316,157. Let us take the next year, 1929; the value of fish imported into this country in 1929 amounted to £354,452, making an increase in the fish imported in 1929 as compared with 1928 of £38,295 I wonder does it occur to the minds of Deputies who study the fishing problem why any fish should be imported into this country at all if our fishing industry were properly organised and if the Minister for Finance realised the importance and potentiality of the fishing industry? There is an old saying about bringing coals to Newcastle; the same thing should apply here. Why bring fish to the Saorstát? There is plenty of fish in our own waters if the industry were properly developed, if the fishermen were properly organised, and if the Executive Council gave the attention they should give in order to develop this vital industry to this country.

So much for the import of fish. Let us turn now to the question of exports, and again we will see we are not improving. According to the statistics issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce in 1928 the total amount of fish exported from the Saorstát amounted to £695,951; for the year 1929 the exports of fish had fallen to £493,550. So that for the year 1929 as compared with 1928 there was a decline in our exports of £202,401. When this fact is taken conjointly into consideration with the figures of imports we find that 75 per cent. of the fish landed on the coast of the Saorstát was handled by non-Saorstát fishermen. No doubt there are quite a number of causes that affect this question of the decline in the fishing industry. One of the questions that affects it very seriously is that of poaching by foreign trawlers, which I hope to deal with later on. But I would point out, as far as the constituency which I represent is concerned—and I think the Minister will agree it is one of the greatest fishing centres in the Saorstát—that decline can be attributed also to other causes.

As I pointed out, 75 per cent. of the fish landed on our shores is handled by non-Saorstát fishermen. At the same time attempts have been made by those interested in the fishing industry in Scotland to endeavour to curtail the fishing season along the Co. Donegal coast. I shall read to the House a brief extract with regard to this matter which was taken from one of the Donegal newspapers. It deals with the endeavours that are being made in Aberdeen and other parts of Scotland in order to curtail the length of the fishing season, and it states:—

"The Donegal season of the present year has been of short duration, the shortest on record. And sorry to have to admit, it would have been much shorter if the Aberdeen magnates had so desired. They could if they wished have decreed a close season on this coast. There were practically no native boats with which to prosecute the fishing. This action of the Scottish curers as regards the curtailment of the fishing season on this coast has naturally created bitter resentment. If a similar course had been adopted in relation to the other fishing countries one could see the logic of their procedure. But no such course was adopted. There was no shortening of the season anywhere on the Scottish coast. The fishing began almost simultaneously with operations on the Irish coast, and Scotch herrings were on the foreign market almost as quickly as were those from our shores. The result was that prices which, in the beginning, were satisfactory, considerably lowered. It was even reported that Donegal herrings were neglected and passed over. There is reason to believe that there is some agency at work to destroy the Donegal herring industry. The quality of this season's fish was such as could hardly have been rivalled, yet reports were broadcasted to German agents that the herrings were green and immature."

I draw attention to that extract for the purpose of pointing out that our fisheries are largely in the hands of non-Saorstát people, a condition of affairs which, if our fisheries are to improve, in the manner we would like to see them, must be remedied.

The Minister on Thursday last in introducing this Estimate mentioned the question of the re-valuation of the boats. That is a question which affects the fishermen to a very considerable degree. As the Minister is aware, loans were obtained a number of years ago by the fishermen when the cost of the boats were at the peak price, with the result that as the value of the boats fell the fishermen found themselves in an unenviable position and found that in many cases there was overvaluation of their boats. It was promised that after the Sea Fisheries Conference legislation would be introduced in order to deal with the re-valuation of the boats, but again up to the present, these promises have been unfulfilled.

May I ask the Deputy if he was listening to my speech on Thursday afternoon on that very point? I said that within a month of my speech on the Estimates last year a Committee was set up, as I stated to deal with re-valuation.

I quite realise that the Minister said that.

And it has been done.

Nevertheless the Minister made the promise that legislation would be introduced in order to give effect to the question of the re-valuation of the boats, and my complaint is that up to the present that legislation has not been introduced. Deputy Jasper Wolfe dealt with the question of loans to fishermen and he pointed out that, if, as outlined by the Minister, we were to set up a Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association the best way to launch that Association would be to wipe out all loans outstanding and to start afresh. Let us wipe the slate clean in order to give the fishermen some hope, and in order that the Co-operative Association may succeed in this important matter and in the way the Minister would like to see them succeed. I might point out that quite a short time ago legislation was introduced into the Manx Parliament and it was found possible for the Manx fishermen to obtain loans free of any interest. I hope, as far as this new Association is concerned, that when they give loans they will endeavour to give them at as low a rate of interest as is possible, even though they are not prepared to come up to scratch in the same way as the Manx Government has done. I hope they will go as far to develop the Saorstát fisheries as the Manx Government have done for their fisheries by granting loans free of interest.

In regard to the question of loans, I know as far as Donegal is concerned we have very many complaints. In one particular case that I want to mention an applicant made an application for a loan of £5 for the purchase of nets. He got the necessary forms from the Department and got these forms filled in by two sureties. He got the forms endorsed by the Fisheries Inspector. He thought that everything was in order so as to enable him to claim that loan for the purpose of buying the nets. That application form, duly signed and properly filled up, was sent on to the Department of Fisheries. Month after month elapsed and the money was not forthcoming. He wrote to the Department and after six months a reply was received by him from the Department stating that one of the sureties was too old and could not be accepted as a surety. Surely it should not take the Minister's Department six months to come to that decision? That is only one specimen of the way in which applicants for loans are treated by the Department of Fisheries.

Did the Deputy raise that matter in the House within a month or six weeks or two months, or did he raise it within six months? I would like to know particulars of a case like that.

I have given the Minister particulars.

The Deputy has not given me particulars of this case. I never heard of it until now. He says that six months elapsed between the sending on of the form duly signed and the time when he got a letter informing him that one of the sureties was unacceptable. There is a rule in the Department that a person is not accepted as a surety if he is 60 or 70 years of age. I would like to get from the Deputy particulars of the case in which it took the Department six months to come to that decision.

I have the details in the case, but for obvious reasons I do not want to give the Minister the name across the House.

I do not want it given in the House. The Deputy can give me the name privately.

I will not give the Minister the name. The possibility is that if I did, that poor fisherman would be afterwards penalised when he made application for another loan.

That is nonsense.

I think the Minister was endeavouring to talk nonsense when he introduced this Estimate. A very important question with which we are faced as far as fisheries are concerned is the matter of protection for our fisheries. The Minister taunts me with talking nonsense. But I charge the Minister here and now that on many occasions he made promises that the Executive Council or his Department were going to purchase additional protection vessels. I say that the Minister on those occasions did talk nonsense, because those promises have been unfulfilled. The result is that we find foreign trawlers coming over and taking the fish which would be caught by our own fishermen if proper attention had been given to this question of protection. We read in this morning's "Independent" that the French Government have decided that three gunboats are to come along to look after the encroachments by the French fishing boats on the territorial waters of the Saorstát. Surely it is a sorry state of affairs if it is necessary for our Fisheries Department to get the French Government to protect our own fisheries. Surely if we had been paying enough attention to this very important question we would have protection vessels ourselves.

Again, according to the report in the "Independent," I observe that the commander of the French gunboats in an interview with a representative of the "Independent" stated that "While French fishermen experience little or no trouble when fishing off the English coast, they are in considerable difficulty as regards the limit off the Irish seaboard." I think it is as well that we in this House should not allow a statement of that kind to go unchallenged. Surely it is not contended by the commander of this gunboat that the British or any other country will allow trawlers or smacks to come into their waters and take lobster-pots off the fishermen, and in some cases to threaten them with violence and even with guns? As the commander of this gunboat has pointed out, there are some difficulties with regard to the determination of what are territorial waters and what are not territorial waters. The Minister himself could not determine them. The Minister does not know what they are. I challenged him across the floor of the House a few days ago to say what these territorial waters were, and he said they were getting legal opinion in regard to it. Apparently they are getting legal opinion on this matter for a very long time. A statement was made in the discussion on the matter of the Imperial Conference in this House a few days ago that no other country or no other Government had authority to interfere with any rights of the Saorstát. What about the action of the Six-County Government when they attempt to interfere with our territorial rights as far as Lough Foyle is concerned? Is not that looked upon as our territorial water?

I received a letter this morning from a resident of the Arranmore Islands in Donegal, and I will read a portion of it for the Minister if he desires it. Here is an extract from this letter:—"About the beginning of February some local fishermen started to fish haddock in Arranmore Bay, and their efforts were pretty successful up to a fortnight ago, when under the very eyes of the fishermen there came up a foreign trawler into the bay and trawled up the fishing grounds, with the result that the local fishermen had to give up fishing, as whatever fish was left behind left the grounds. You can understand the position." He then points out that, as in other years, he expects within a month's time we will have French boats coming here and clearing up the bay of all lobsters while we have a patrol boat costing £8,000 per annum. He makes the suggestion: "I think if the Department give a motor-boat and a couple of Lewis guns to the fishermen in this area they will themselves protect the coast at a much lower cost than what is expended at the present time by the Department."

Does the Deputy seriously put that forward?

I am putting forward the suggestion that was made to me. What I do put forward is that the Department should have two speedy motor boats in Donegal, one in Lough Swilly and the other in Donegal Bay in order to protect the fishermen from the ravages of those foreign marauders that come in there and get away unmolested with our fish.

There is a matter that I think has not yet been raised in this House. One of the directors of the Co-operative Fisheries Association is Mr. Laurence O'Toole, of Arklow. He is a gentleman who, I understand, knows a considerable amount about the fishing industry. Speaking in Dublin on 4th February, 1929, he stated: "I should correct in passing the prevailing impression that all the money devoted to the fishing industry by Government Departments was provided from Government funds. Such is not the case. A fund created in London in 1822 for the benefit of Irish fisheries was taken over by the Free State Government under the Treaty. It would be interesting to know what balance remains to the credit of this fund at the present time."

I would like the Minister to reply to that, because allegations were made here some time ago that in pre-1914 days the British Government, through what was known as the Development Fund, voted the sum of £18,000 for the improvement of Buncrana harbour and pier. That was denied by the Minister's Department, but afterwards the Department, in conjunction with the Department of Industry and Commerce, was forced to face the situation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking in the Seanad in regard to the Buncrana Harbour and Pier Bill, said that the money had been voted for the purposes of development in pre-war days by the British Government. Is this a parallel case? Was any money taken over after the Treaty was signed, and, if so, what has become of it? There was a question brought up today affecting fish workers. It dealt with reciprocity as far as unemployment insurance is concerned.

That is not a matter for the Department of Fisheries.

I was anxious to refer to it briefly. Large numbers of fish-workers leave our coast for England and Scotland. While they are working there certain amounts are stopped from their wages for insurance, but when they come back here they cannot get any benefit.

In their ordinary employment on fishery work they are not in what is called an insurable occupation.

I refer to gutters— people who do the gutting work in the herring industry. That is an insurable occupation.

Oh, yes.

I am sorry to see that no provision is made in this year's Estimates for any expenditure on the improvement of piers, harbours and landing slips. This affects Donegal to a very large extent. Last week or the week before a question was put to the Minister to find out whether he was aware that estimates and plans for adequate pier accommodation at Killybegs had been lodged with the Department in 1927, and whether, as the landing facilities for fishing craft operating from this important port are altogether inadequate, he would state when he proposes to carry out the required improvement. The Minister's reply was very amazing. He stated that the port at Killybegs was suitable enough for the fishing smacks, but there was a necessity for a number of improvements for which the Harbour Commissioners were responsible. In March last plans were prepared for the enlargement of the pier, but he was under the impression that the fishing industry there at the present time was not of sufficient importance to warrant going ahead with the work. Is the Minister aware that, as far as Killybegs is concerned, it is one of the finest natural ports in Ireland, and it is the recognised landing-place for Donegal Bay?

As regards fishing, for a number of years past the industry there has been comparatively successful. As Mr. Laurence O'Toole, of Arklow, has pointed out, whereas Howth and Arklow used to be comparatively successful, the success hitherto attained by both Howth and Arklow is now being attained by Killybegs. The Minister states that the fishing there is not of sufficient importance to warrant a grant being given. During the fishing season at Killybegs a number of German and Russian firms are interested, as well as a large number of trawlers which come from England and Scotland. The Harbour Commissioners have recently spent upwards of £100 dredging the harbour. They have not funds at their disposal to develop the harbour in the manner in which it should be developed. Let us contrast the treatment meted out to the people of Killybegs and the people of Howth. We find that Donegal apparently is of no account. Everything seems to be done for Dublin, Cork and other such places. This year the Board of Works are devoting £2,274 for maintenance and improvement work at Howth Harbour. Last year they voted over £2,000. I venture to say that the amount credited on the Appropriation Accounts in connection with tolls and dues in Howth is comparatively small. The fishing there during the past couple of years was a comparative failure. At periods there were only a few row-boats there, with an occasional motor boat. In the case of Dun Laoghaire over £20,000 has been voted this year, while £730 has been voted for Dunmore East. Donegal has been treated very badly, and I hope that this point will be stressed by Donegal Deputies on the Government Benches.

Does the Deputy realise that Howth, Dun Laoghaire and Dunmore East are State harbours built by the State and maintained by the State? The whole question of maintenance is on the State. The other harbours of the country are maintained by some local authority or a Harbour Board. These are essentially State harbours, and it is a duty on the State to maintain them.

The money is on the Vote for the Office of Public Works.

I quite recognise all that. If the duty is on the State to maintain a place like Howth, where the fishing for a number of years has been a comparative failure, there should be a greater duty on the State to improve what is a flourishing industry in Killybegs. Instead of weakening my case the Minister has actually strengthened it.

It was never because it was a good fishing centre that the harbour was maintained.

During 1928 and 1929 the pier at Killybegs was totally inadequate to provide the berthing accommodation required for trawlers and drifters that came from England, Scotland and other places. Take the case of Bundoran. Application was made some time ago to get a grant to develop Bundoran pier. Bundoran is one of the finest seaside resorts in Ireland. It is developing into a fine tourist centre. The President, speaking with regard to the £3,000 voted for motor races in the Phoenix Park, said he believed the money was well spent, because it would help to develop the tourist traffic. If some money were spent developing Bundoran it would also assist the tourist traffic very materially. I suggest that a supplementary estimate should be brought in. It would be better spent money than what has been devoted to the Phoenix Park motor races. Take Portrush and Bangor and observe the way that these harbours have been developed. There is direct shipping there at times. A development of Bundoran pier would facilitate shipping as well as the fishing industry. A direct line could be operated with places on the English and Scotch coasts, and this would mean a big increase in tourists at Bundoran.

In regard to the question of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association, there is one matter to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. Although County Donegal is recognised as one of the most important fishing centres in the Saorstát, not one representative from Donegal has been put on the board of directors. It is again a case of Donegal being nowhere. I would like to know if, after this Association is established, all the responsibility will be taken out of the hands of the Department as far as loans are concerned.

Will all responsibility be taken out of the hands of Deputies in regard to raising questions in this House as to who are, or who are not, to get loans? Is it to be like the Electricity Supply Board or the Agricultural Credit Corporation and is it to have full autonomy as an Association while this House will have practically no jurisdiction over it? Unlike speakers who have spoken in this debate on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches, I am not going to eulogise the Association until I see how it works. I would like to know whether the Minister at this juncture is prepared to enlighten us as to what rate of interest is going to be charged for loans from this Association. Personally I hope that the Association will succeed and will help in reviving the fishing industry. In addition to this being the vote for fisheries it is also the Vote for Gaeltacht services. The House will be aware that, so far as the Gaeltacht Commission is concerned, it reported to the Executive Council on 14th July, 1926, and the Executive Council in February, 1928, had printed and circulated to Deputies a White Paper setting out their intentions in regard to that report. Some of the recommendations made in that White Paper have not been carried out.

One recommendation was to the effect that special grants should be given for the encouragement of the reclamation of land. It was stated that the Government were prepared to give effect to the recommendation and to have the matter explored with a view to having a suitable scheme drafted. That was over two years ago, but we have not yet got a suitable scheme for the reclamation of land, so far as the Gaeltacht is concerned. Another recommendation was that a comprehensive afforestation scheme for the Gaeltacht should be undertaken. I understand that according to the recommendation in the White Paper the Government were prepared to give facilities with a view to getting afforestation started on a proper footing in the Gaeltacht. I repeatedly asked the Minister for Agriculture in this House to state the number of counties in which money has been spent for afforestation purposes. Large sums, I understand, have been voted year after year for that purpose, but up to the present not one half-penny has been spent out of that money in the Gaeltacht in Donegal. Is that carrying out the recommendations of the Gaeltacht Commission? I hope that the Department will consider this matter and give Donegal what it deserves in this regard or else let the Government repudiate the recommendations in the White Paper.

Another recommendation was to the effect that expenditure be incurred for the provision of small slips and break-waters and in repairing some existing ones. In the White Paper the Government said:—"Provision has been made each year in the Department of Fisheries Vote for grants towards the cost of construction and repair of small harbours and landing places, but in no year up to the present has the amount so voted been availed of fully." I do not think that that is altogether right. I have repeatedly asked for grants to be given towards the provision of landing slips off the islands of Donegal, but such requests were always refused. Notwithstanding all that, we are told that the money voted has not been availed of. The reason for that is that the Minister's Department will not spend the money voted for that purpose. A further recommendation was to the effect that loans should be made available for the purpose of setting up carding and finishing mills, but that has not been done so far as Donegal is concerned. A debate took place recently in regard to the refusal of the Minister to allocate a sum of £600 or £700 to set up carding and breaking machines and dyeing vats in Ardara. It is mentioned in the report that so far as this industry is concerned in Donegal in pre-war times there were about 2,000 workers employed. There are in Ardara and South Donegal 1,500 spinning wheels worth £2 each and 600 looms at £15 each approximately, making a total of £12,000. Moreover, in Ardara you have electrical plant capable of supplying electri city for industrial purposes at one penny a unit, which is cheaper than the Shannon Scheme rate.

Some time ago an instructor was appointed who went to Donegal, and I understand that the intention of the Executive Council in appointing him was to try and develop the handspun industry in the Ardara and other areas in Donegal. In introducing this estimate the Minister said: "The preliminary work was conducted at Ardara, which was at one time the centre of the industry. We trained between 50 and 60 weavers there. I must say that the results in Ardara were not at all satisfactory. The number of weavers capable of turning out work of the required standard has been very small and there has not been any indication or general disposition to take it up as a trade." In order to prove the inaccuracy of that statement made by the Minister last week. I would direct the attention of Deputies to a statement made by the Minister on 23rd October last, in which he said: "I should like to inform the Deputy that the instructor of the Department, after searching the highways and byeways, could only find six spinners in the neighbourhood of Ardara." Was the Minister sincere in making that statement? Was he aware that it was denied strenuously? Was he aware that a few days after that statement we received a telegram from Ardara stating that there were fifty workers employed by private employers and that large numbers were unemployed?

At any rate, to prove the inaccuracy of the Minister's statement, the instructor, who, the Minister alleged, informed him that there were only six spinners in that area, called a meeting about a week after I raised the matter in this House, and gave out wool to be spun to about 130 spinners in the Ardara area. The Minister therefore knows that his statement to me was absolutely incorrect, and I challenge the Minister, if he still adheres to that statement, to come with me up to Ardara on next Sunday or Sunday week, and I will guarantee to get together for him approximately 200 spinners and weavers in the market at Ardara. Apparently it is not the intention of the Minister to endeavour to develop the hand-spun industry. There are certain sinister influences at work, I believe, to ensure that the mill spun yarn industry will be developed at the expense of the hand-spun industry. When the Minister is dealing with this question in reply I want him to be straight about it, to refer to the industry as the hand-spun industry, and not try to camouflage the name by referring to it as the home-spun industry. I am referring to yarn spun and woven in the cottages. When the Minister talks of handwoven, what does he mean? He purchased 4,200 lbs. of wool spun at mills which are situated outside the Gaeltacht some time ago, instead of getting it spun in the homes of the people in the Gaeltacht, where it would give much-needed employment. It is recognised that the hand-spun industry has been retarded in the Ardara area owing to the want of proper machinery, owing to the want of carders, breakers and dyeing vats: These would cost approximately £700.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that he is helping to re-establish the industry in Kilcar, Glencolumbkille, Glenties, Gortahork, Dunlewey and other places. He should be able to do that without retarding progress in the Ardara area. If the Minister would agree to allocate £600 or £700 in order to instal the necessary machinery it would provide work in that area for about 200 or 250 weavers and spinners. It can hardly be said the Department cannot afford the £600 or £700, when we find in the estimate a sum of £1,000 for the Dublin Zoological Gardens, to feed the animals there, and £1,000 for the Abbey Theatre. Last year we were asked to vote a similar sum for the Thorndale Veterinary Laboratory, for the purpose of erecting a guinea pig house. I put it to the Minister that the sum I ask for the development of those industries is very small and reasonable in comparison with the sums I have just named. Surely the Minister will see his way to make an expenditure of this amount in order to revive these industries?

Generally speaking, I do not think that a sufficient effort is being made in the Department to carry out the recommendations of the Gaeltacht Commission. Some time ago [ accompanied a deputation to the Minister, and a Mr. Jerry Barnes was then prepared to invest a sum of £2,000 if the Department would advance a similar sum at a low rate of interest to start a readymade clothing factory at Crolly Bridge, in Donegal. I suppose the Minister will tell me that no decision has been come to yet, but Mr. Barnes, after the lapse of a very long time, has not received any definite information from the Minister. The Minister may say that the Department do not regard that as a feasible scheme, but I, Mr. Barnes, and others, hold that it is feasible. However, Mr. Barnes has not been notified whether any decision has been arrived at.

I can assure the Minister that I do not raise any of these points for the purpose of indulging in any carping criticism. I raise them in the hope that the Minister will pay some attention, more attention than he has in the past, to the sign-posts I have indicated, and that the necessary assistance will be forthcoming for the industries which I have mentioned. It is my intention to vote for the amendment that the Estimate be referred back, so that the Minister will refer it back to the Minister for Finance, in the hope that the Minister for Finance will recognise that a much bigger sum is required for services in the Gaeltacht than we are asked to vote on this occasion.

Tá baramhail agam féin go bhfuil oiread colais ag cuid de na Teachtaí a labharas annseo ar shaol san Ghaeltacht as tá agam-sa ar shaol na ndaoineadh san Ucraine no san Rúis. Agus ní mór an méid colais é sin. B'fhéidir go bhfeiceann cuid aca beanna agus sléibhte Thír Chonaill uair nó dhó san bhliain; ach níl aca dúinne annseo ach sean-scéal reatha, mar "dubhairt bean liom gur dhubhairt bean léi." Ach tá Teachtaí annseo a thuigeas an Ghaeltacht i gceart agus tá mé cinnte go raibh lúthgháir orra chluinstin ón Aire caidé bhí faoi 'dhéanamh don Ghaeltacht. Tá súil agam go gcuirfidh an tAire agus na Rúnaidhthe ar a chúl iomlán a nirt san obair sco agus go gcuirfidh siad leis go dlúth, go diongbhálta agus go dúthrachtach. Béimíd uilig ag dréim le rian a saothair d'fheiceál gan mhoill.

Is maith an scéal go bhfuil Bórd úr ag dul i gcionn gnaithe na híascaireachta. Thug an scéal sin uchtach agus misneach mór do iascairí na Gaeltachta agus tá súil agam nach mbeidh siad meallta ann. Acht, má tá maitheas ar bith le teacht as, guidhim ar Aire an Airgid gan a bheith truaillighe no ceachardha leo san obair. Mar' rabh seisean fial fiúntach san chás, b'fhearr dúinn go mór gan aon Bhórd a chur ar bun.

Anois, tá ceist agam don Aire— An dtig leis stad a chur leis an scrios agus an léan atá ar lorg na dtrálairí i mBáighe Dhún na nGall? Má tá ceann ann, tá dhá fhichid ceann as Aberdeen agus Fleetwood ag síorscríobadh na fairrge sin. Mar bhfuil, badh chóir go mbéadh, comhacht ag an Rialtas Báighe Dhún na nGall a dhruid ó Cheann Aicill go Ceann Ghluine agus é bheith toirmeasctha tráiléireacht a dhéanamh taoibh istigh de sin. Rinneadh seo i gcás Bháighe Mhuirigh i nAlbain agus níl fáth nach ndéanfaí mar a' gcéadna i mBáighe Dhún na nGall. Annsin, bhéadh cead scéidhthe agus pósadh ag an iase nach bhfuil anois agus dhéanfadh seo maith as miosúr do Dhún na nGall agus don larthar chois fairrge. Tá ceist amháin eile agus badh chóir don Aire í scrúdú go cúramach. Caidé an dóigh a dtig leis an Rialtas iomlán seilbhe d'fháil ar iascaireacht bhradán i gcuantaí an tSaorstáit? Cuir i gcás an Eirne agus na several fisheries a thógas oiread bruighne agus achrainn sna cúirteanna o bhliain go bliain. Badh chóir go mbéadh an iascaireacht seo uilig faoi stiúradh náisiúnta agus ag dul 'un tairbhe do iomlán na tíre.

Anois, fá na déantúisí, tá lúthgháir orm a rá go bhfuil dul 'un cinn maith déanta ó 'nuiridh agus tá dóchas láidir agam go dtiocfaidh maitheas mór as na scéimeanna atá eadar lámha ag an Aire.

Tá fhios againn nach dtig déantús úr a chur ar bun no sean-cheann aithbheodhú i gceann míosa no ráithe. Caithfimíd níos mó foighde a bheith againn. Tá Teachtaí annseo agus saoileann siad gur chóir don Aire déantús úr a chur ar bun mar bhéarfadh cleasaidhe coinín amach as hata. Ná tabharadh sé aon áird orra. Leanadh sé don chúrsa atá leagtha amach aige agus tuillfidh sé féin agus an Rialtas buidheachas agus beannacht Ghaedheal na Gaeltachta.

The Fisheries Estimate this year is somewhat different from the Estimate for Fisheries put before us in past years, particularly in regard to the new departure which the Minister proposes to make in reference to the reorganisation of the fishing industry. One thing that strikes me in looking through the book of Estimates is that £47,270 is the amount which the Minister asks the Dáil to vote for his Department. We hear here from year to year, and at public meetings throughout the country, that the fishing industry, if it were reorganised, could be made the second most important industry of the State. It is taken for granted generally by every public speaker I have heard, that second to the agricultural industry, the fishing industry could be made the staple industry of this State. Yet for an industry which has within it such possibilities of development, if proper attention and if the proper initiative were shown by the Government to put it on a business footing and to save it from the absolute decay and death which at the moment appear to face it, we have the Minister coming before the Dáil asking for a paltry sum of £47,270, whilst, on the other hand, the Minister for External Affairs, for a Department which does not in reality give any return in pounds, shillings and pence to the State, secures an Estimate of £59,822. The difference between the Estimate for Fisheries and the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs is £12,552. On the one hand, a Department which is merely a sort of show Department, a sort of display Department for a status which this State does not possess, will secure in the course of a few days £12,552 more than a Department which is in charge of an industry that everybody appears to recognise has the possibility of being made the greatest and the most productive industry in this State. I think the efforts of the Department of Fisheries will be nullified because of the fact that no serious effort has yet been made to tackle the fishing problem as it should be tackled.

Undoubtedly we welcome the introduction of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association as outlined by the Minister in his speech, but, like other Deputies, I am sceptical about it until I see it in actual operation. The unfortunate part, so far as I can understand from the Minister's speech, is that the Association will not be in a position to get into full working order before about the middle of June. That means that half of the present fishing season would be past before any boats, loans or gear could be availed of by the fishermen. Undoubtedly it is the first serious constructive effort that has been made since the establishment of the Free State in 1922 to deal with the fishing problem. In my opinion this effort may lead to good things if the proper grit, initiative and determination are put behind it and if the Department of Fisheries and the Minister who is in charge, not alone of Fisheries but of the Gaeltacht services, is given in that respect a free hand. We understand, and anyone who has any acquaintance with the problem understands, that it is a very difficult job, and a job that can be solved only by an absolute determination to get there whatever the cost. I think it was last year, in the course of a discussion on this Estimate, that I asked the Minister whether he would candidly say in his reply if the Government, having considered the possibilities of the fishing industry, thought that the fishery problem was worthy of an attempt of solution. I think, in winding up, the Minister should give us a reply to that, because if this Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association is going to come to anything, it means that the Estimate that we have before us is not going to cover the actual extent of its operation. It means that the Minister may have to come before the House for a Supplementary Estimate, and it means that the House must have sufficient confidence in the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association and give the Minister sufficient support to ensure, if he desires further money, that he will get it without any further delay.

Another thing in connection with that problem is the omission from the Estimates this year of the usual grant for piers and harbour development. It is unfortunate that in this attempt to revive the fishing industry along our coasts no mention has been made and no apparent action taken with regard to the facilities of which the fishermen stand in dire need, particularly along the coast I am acquainted with, the south-west coast of Ireland. Last year the Minister stated that the grants which were voted by his Department year after year were not fully availed of. Applications came in and evidently his Inspectors thought that there was no real necessity for the utilisation of the moneys in the places from which the applications came. The fact remains and the Minister himself should be well aware of it that along the coast slips or piers must be constructed. They are vital things if the operations of this Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association are to come to any success. If he provides fishermen with boats, nets and gear and if at the same time they have no facilities for landing their catches his efforts will be nullified at one end. I think he should endeavour to right that and to work it in with his Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association when that Board begins to function.

In connection with that there was a grant made by his Department for the dredging of Kinsale Harbour about 18 months ago. No action has since been taken and despite repeated attempts on all sides to secure a dredger in order to utilise that grant the efforts of the Harbour Board of Kinsale and of myself failed on every occasion. I do not know why, because from what I can understand from the Department of Public Works they have three dredgers. On every occasion on which we applied to them for the use of the dredger they failed.

I want to suggest to the Minister that if he gives a grant for the dredging or development of a harbour and leaves it to the local authorities to secure the dredger in order to utilise the money put at the disposal of the local council by his Department that some effort should be made by his Department to ensure closer co-operation between the Board of Works and the Department of Fisheries in the utilisation of the dredgers they have under their control. After all dredgers that must be secured from other public bodies or from cross-Channel firms for the dredging of harbours can be secured only at an exorbitant cost. Public bodies will not undertake the work, whereas if there was closer co-operation between the Fishery Department and the Department of Public Works where grants are given to public authorities by his Department some means should be taken to ensure that those grants would be utilised and availed of by the provision of a dredger. I would like to know what is the exact position at the moment with regard to the question of the dredging of Kinsale Harbour.

In the course of the introduction of the Estimate the Minister dealt with the question of fishery loans and stated that 700 up to the present had been dealt with. I was very glad to know that he had that pleasing statement to make to the Dáil. I would ask him to go a step further. With Deputy Wolfe I would appeal to him to wipe completely off the State loans that were incurred by fishermen prior to 1922. Undoubtedly the fishing industry is in a parlous condition at the moment. Fishermen find it hard enough to make ends meet. I would wish the Minister to respond to the appeals made in this House last year, this year and in other years. He knows that there is no use in trying to get blood out of a turnip. Fishermen in many parts of the country who incurred those loans are, at the moment, down and out. They are not in a position to repay them, and it would be better for his Department to wipe the slate clean and to give those people a chance if they are to secure further assistance to start without this milestone being tied around their neck.

With regard to item G of the Estimate, concerning herring branding, I see a sum of £50 down for that. £50 strikes me as being a farcical sum to vote in connection with a matter of this nature. I do not think that the Minister touched on that in introducing the Estimate last week. I would like to know exactly what does that mean, and for what purpose that £50 will be spent, because, if I remember rightly, last year, in the course of the debate on the Fishery Estimate, the Minister discussed the possibilities of a Bill for the branding of mackerel for export. In the course of his statement he said:—

"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."

That was the 9th May, 1928. That Bill has not yet arrived. You see here £50 for herring branding. I would like him to state, in the course of his reply, whether that herring branding business includes mackerel regulation as promised, or whether the Mackerel Bill will materialise before next Recess, and for what purpose that £50 will be spent. I cannot see what £50 is to do for herring branding, and I am sure the House will be glad to know in what respect it will be spent.

There was some talk in the course of this debate with regard to territorial limits. On the last occasion on which this Vote was before the House I expressed doubt as to whether there was any really recognised international three-mile limit. The Minister is quite aware that in other countries where an industry was threatened by foreign competition or otherwise an attempt was made to secure that the recognised English three-mile limit should be abolished. The Minister is aware that countries such as Norway, Russia and the United States have not and do not recognise the three-mile limit for purposes such as this. If they do not do it when their industry is threatened there is no reason in the world why this State would not attempt something on similar lines. At the present moment, so far as we can understand, there is sitting at the Hague a Conference to deal with territorial waters. We have a delegation from our Department of Foreign Affairs assisting at that Conference. I think if the Minister would send along a memorandum to the Department of External Affairs asking that the delegation at that Conference bring this question of territorial waters up and get a definite decision as regards the waters of the Irish coast, the Department of External Affairs would be doing something to justify its existence, and the Minister would be doing a very good day's work for the fishing industry and for our fishermen.

Deputy Cassidy, I think, quoted something from the "Independent" with regard to the French commander of a gunboat sent by the French Government to Irish waters. There is one very important point in it that I would recommend to the Minister's attention. Commander Duval stated that his Government would be willing to enter into any agreement regarding the fixing of definite prohibition limits as regards the Irish Free State coast. The French, Dutch and British are the chief offenders in connection with our territorial waters, and if at that Conference at the Hague our delegation from Foreign Affairs reminded these people that we have as much right to the use of the sea within certain strictly defined limits as they have to the use of the seas around their coasts within certain strictly defined limits an agreement might be come to. I think the Minister should recommend that to the Department of External Affairs, particularly when the French appear to be, in connection with the lobster fishing, the chief offenders.

Last year I appealed for a close season on the south coast. The Minister evidently did not consider it worth while to take any further action on it. If he could bring under the notice also of that Foreign Affairs delegation at the Hague the question of an internationally agreed close season on the Irish coast, I think he would be doing a good day's work for the fishing industry, and the Department of External Affairs would have yet another reason to justify its existence. Last year and the year before Stettin and Danzic buvers stated definitely that they would not purchase any further herring caught off the Irish coast before a certain date. The herrings were left in the hands of the buyers and were unsaleable. An attempt was made from certain seaports in the south coast to secure a close season but, unfortunately, the close season arranged by the Government of the Free State and its Department of Fisheries would be of no value if it could only be enforced against Irish fishermen. International agreement is obviously necessary if these Scotch, Dutch and French poachers are to be kept off our coast, and it would be well if some action were taken in that respect and some attempt made by negotiation to secure it. After all, we are told that negotiation can secure anything in this century, and that the gun can secure nothing. We have not got the guns to do it, and since we are sending delegations to all parts of the world, I would suggest to the Minister that he would give some attention to that matter in the course of his reply.

The question of fines, touched on by Deputy Wolfe, is one also that the Minister has not given the consideration it deserves. These people come within our territorial waters. They poach our fish, and by reason of better equipped and faster ships and by more determination obviously than our own fishermen have they are able to get away with their catches, and no effective action appears to be taken to put terror, so to speak, into their hearts and prevent them breaking our fishery laws. Deputy Wolfe made an eloquent plea in favour of action being taken. I want to support the case he made. I believe that unless that is done the actions and activities of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association will be rendered useless.

Much talk has been made about protection of fisheries. That is another point upon which the Sea Fisheries Association is going to come to grief unless before it is formally launched and its loans become effective action is taken in regard to outstanding loans. Last year a sum of £8,000 was voted for fishery protection services. The year before a similar sum was voted. The year before that a similar amount was also voted. We find in connection with fishery protection that the Minister, introducing the Estimate on the 9th May, 1928, stated:

At the same time, it is quite possible, owing to the vessel now becoming old—that is the "Muirchú"—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.

The Minister himself admitted in 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929 that further protection was needed. This year no application is made for any further protection in that respect. The House, I am sure, will be glad to know why. In that connection I am very glad to notice that the most eloquent defender of the Government of the Irish Free State that we have in the South of Ireland has made a call for protection. In the course of a leading article in the "Evening Echo" on March 22nd he called for the same thing that Deputies have been calling for in this House for the last five or six years. I make no apology for quoting the article extensively, because, coming from such an authority on international and constitutional law, and such a strong supporter of the Government as Mr. Crosbie is, I think it might have more weight than many of the speeches that we may have to make in this House. Evidently the power of the Press is wonderful and should be obeyed. The article is headed:

Call for Protection.

It reads:—

The debate in the Dáil on the Vote of £28,270 for the Department of Fisheries revealed nothing with which the public are not already acquainted. All that was said may be legitimately placed in the category of ancient history. At all events, it seems so to many of us, and when the day and necessity for its reiteration cease, we shall be very glad. Time and again the plight of the fisher-folk has been spoken of in the Press and on the platform, but it is regrettable to think that all the advocacy has been, indeed, far from fruitful. However, as the Dáil has once again tackled the topic, let us hope that something practical and advantageous will follow. In the course of yesterday's discussion the inadequacy of the protection of our fisheries against the piracies of foreign trawlers was emphasised, and it was pointed out that the existing patrol system was unable to deal with them. How true this is can be gauged from the fact that only one boat is employed on the work. As well might it be suggested that one policeman is sufficient guarantee for the protection of life and property of an entire city as to say that this one-boat arrangement is all that the safeguarding of our fisheries requires. Year after year, indeed month after month, we have evidence furnished of how what should be the harvest of our poor fishermen is stolen by foreign trawlers. And, of course, the operations of these raiders are encouraged and facilitated by the lamentable circumstance that for the entire coast marking the Free State there is only one patrol boat available. The position is absurd, and would, indeed, be laughable if it did not represent such a grave measure of injustice to our fishermen, who, under the most favourable conditions, would, we should think, find it hard enough to make ends meet—however humble that same may be.

We observe that in the course of the debate the employment of motor patrol boats was urged, and this at least would represent one step in the right direction. It is abundantly evident that one boat cannot do the work with any degree of satisfaction, and, consequently, it is perfectly plain that further and more complete protective action is needed. A patrol boat cannot be in a dozen different places at the same time, and nobody knows this better, and avails of it more fully, than the foreign raider. Like the burglar, he watches his opportunity and turns it to good account at the expense of our poor fishermen. This is surely a situation that cannot be tolerated much longer. Considerable damage and much injustice have been already done, and there is nothing more certain than their continuing until such time as our Government employ methods that will render the despicable game stale, flat and unprofitable. To know that foreigners reap the harvest that rightly belongs to our fellow-countrymen is bitter; but that it should be made so by our own lack of action in the direction that the fact dictates intensifies the feeling. We are quite prepared to believe that our Government is anxious to cope adequately with the situation, but let us suggest that we have had too many delays and we want no more of them.

The "Cork Examiner" warns the Government that there have been too many delays and that they will not stand any more. How many people in the South of Ireland who support the Government are represented by the "Cork Examiner"? I hope the Minister will take notice of that fact. Last year I advocated small motor patrol boats such as are employed by the United States Government in chasing rum runners should be employed here for the protection of our sea fisheries. If a fleet of half a dozen such boats, which are capable of weathering pretty heavy seas and going out a distance of from ten to fifteen miles off the coast, were utilised, I am sure that, even though the initial cost might be pretty heavy, they would repay in the end any expenditure involved. Unless that is done, or unless the alternative method also advocated here, namely, the utilisation of seaplanes is adopted, I do not see any possibility of even four boats like the "Muirchu," with the very small speed which she possesses, and lacking effective gunnery appliances, doing any good in driving off poachers.

If the Minister adopts our suggestion as to consulting with the Department of External Affairs, he might also consult the Department of Defence and see whether it would not be more advantageous to secure one or two seaplanes for experimental purposes instead of the Bristol fighters which they have at present in the Air Force. Who they are going to fight nobody knows. That would be better than having an Air Force which, like the Department of External Affairs, is being used for show purposes. I suggest that he should take these suggestions into consideration. They are meant seriously and are given in all good faith, in the hope that some effort may be made, either along these lines, or other lines which may be found to be more suitable, in order to save what is left of the fishing industry off our coast. I do not see any use in the revival of the industry along the lines of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association if every effort of the Minister is to be nullified by foreign trawlers and poachers. Both ends of the problem must be tackled together; the Department must march forward not along one narrow road, but along every road on which there is a tentacle of that problem. If the Minister tackles them all simultaneously, it should be possible, even though progress is slow at the beginning, within a short time to put the industry on its feet, if there is determination behind it. Pending the active operation of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association, there is one thing to which the Minister ought to give serious consideration. The fishing season is at hand and there are many fishermen anxious to secure loans for boats or gear or nets. No provision appears to be made for that, except on the production of two solvent securities. I think discretionary power should be given to grant a loan where fishermen are prepared to put up an equivalent in the matter of hard material security to the amount of cash that they require. For instance, some time back there was a case in Kinsale where a fisherman showed intelligence and determination to better himself and to endeavour to bring back to Kinsale some of the lost glory it once had. He built a boat himself and went to tremendous trouble to make it seaworthy. He sunk the last cent. of his capital and produced an excellent boat in every respect, which was valued for at least £150. The boat was fitted out in every respect except the engine, and he applied to the Department of Fisheries for a loan to secure an engine.

At that time he was in a position to secure a practically new engine for £100. He applied for a loan of £100 to the Department, but he did not want to ask people to go security for him, because he believed that, as he had sufficient material value for the amount he was asking for, the Department should show appreciation of his initiative by granting a loan pending the formation of the Association. He wrote to the Department on several occasions, but was informed that under existing regulations two solvent and acceptable securities who were willing to undertake the responsibility for the repayment of the loan were essential. I think that in cases of that kind—and there may be other cases of the same type —there should be powers to enable the Minister, acting on his discretion, and on the advice of his fishery officers, to issue a loan where a sincere attempt is being made by the fishermen concerned to earn an honest livelihood and to assist the Department in re-establishing the industry in places where it is practically dead. I would ask the Minister to give some information on that point and in that particular case, because it appears to be a scandal that no loan should be available for that man before next June, unless he secures two solvent securities, when he himself has security to the value of at least £150.

I do not intend to delay the House except to welcome the establishment of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association. It appears to me to be an honest attempt, even though it is on a small scale, and I am certain that every Deputy will give all the assistance in his power to the Department in making it a success. When the Association is established and its rules laid upon the Table of the House, if we could allow a period of four or six months to see how it will work, then I think it would be time enough to state whether it is or is not a failure. Meantime, I think all good wishes should go out to it, and every assistance that can be rendered to it ought to be rendered by Deputies on every side of the House.

Fishing round the coast of Cork at Knockadoon, Ballycotton and East Ferry has been by far better this year than for the past three years, and the fishermen in many instances have had very good returns. A word of praise is due to the Civic Guards for the assistance they have afforded in patrolling the rivers and protecting the salmon fry. It is presumed that it was owing to their vigilance during the past year that we have had such a good salmon season this year. Our great misfortune is the destruction of fish in the nets which is caused by seals; not only do these seals take away the fish from the nets but they very considerably destroy the nets as well. From a financial point of view it would be one of the best day's work, to my mind, so far as the Minister for Fisheries is concerned, if he would tackle this question of the destruction of salmon by seals. Some time ago I drew the attention of the Minister to this state of affairs on the coast at Ballycotton, Knockadoon and into Youghal and I made a few suggestions to him with regard to the soldiers' station in Carlisle Fort. I suggested that it would be well to give them permission to shoot those seals along the shore at those places. I also suggested to the Minister that if he gave a prize for each seal shot by people living round the coast it would do a good deal.

There is no doubt that this question must be tackled; it is of the very greatest interest. Just imagine, as one easily can, a boat with its net, with eight, nine or ten salmon in the net, when one of these pests comes along, destroys five or six of the salmon and takes away five or six yards of the net as well. I say one of the best day's work, that the Department of Fisheries could do would be to provide some effective means of destroying these pests. From a financial point of view, as I have stated it would be a great day's work for Irish fisheries.

I had a communication some time ago from the Minister with regard to the erection of a pier. I am sure the Minister is not losing sight of the necessity for carrying out that work. During the last storm we had two boats destroyed. The Minister sent down an engineer to investigate the matter, and he saw that these boats were useless to the fishermen. There are some boats down at Baltimore, that would be very useful and would fit in with the requirements of those fishermen who had lost their boats. The fishing industry is peculiar in its own way, because what applies to one district does not apply to another. As I say, there are boats at Baltimore that would be most useful to the fishermen at Rathcoursey. They do not want them for nothing. They are willing to pay for them if they get time. The Cork County Council are always willing to carry out their part in giving certain funds for the erection of piers around the coast. Some time ago we had a long controversy with regard to the pier at Knockadoon and in Ballvmacody. An engineer from the Department who investigated the matter was not quite satisfied as to whether it would be money well spent, if employed in the extension of that pier. But from local knowledge, and from what I have known of the people there, I would say that there is a place called Greenland, quite adjacent to Knockadoon, where a pier could be erected at very little expense and with great benefit to the fishermen. If the Department could not see its way to expend the money which we say should be spent in facilitating the fishermen at Knockadoon I would suggest to the Minister that he should ask his engineer to look at Greenland in order that he may see for himself that what I say is correct. The amount of money that would have to be spent in putting up a new pier or a slip would not amount to much more than the cost of the extension of the pier at Knockadoon and would give very much better results to the fishermen in Knockadoon than perhaps by the extension of the pier. Speaking from what I know of the fishing industry and from what I have learned from people from time to time in Ballycotton, Knockadoon and Rathcoursey, the only real grievance they have is from the point of view of not getting more facilities to provide boats and fishing gear. They are satisfied to work hard and to pay back the amounts lent.

Much more could be done in that respect than is done at present. I know the case of a man in Ballycotton who got a loan and got his boat and is now making fine catches around the coast and disposing of them profitably to a Mr. Ross. Several of these people are making a splendid living in that direction but much more can be done with a little more energy as far as the fishermen are concerned and a little bit more leniency as far as the Department is concerned. I am glad the Minister is setting up this Committee and I am sure its report will be awaited with the greatest interest. The Committee is composed of men of exceptional ability who know the feeling of the country so far as the fishing industry is concerned.

I want again to stress the great point about the destruction of fish by seals along the coast in my constituency. I believe if we handled that question rightly and got certain facilities from the Minister of Defence or some other Department of the Executive we will find a way out of the difficulty. I have no doubt that men could be got who could be trusted if they were given a certain amount of ammunition to clear the coast of these pests from Cobh to Youghal. Seals have done more harm to the fishing industry than the trawlers that fish inside our waters. They have done more destruction around the coast than would be done by a fleet of French trawling vessels.

I am sure that everyone who listened to the speech of Deputy Mullins was impressed, as I was, by the general tone in which it was delivered and by the matter it contained. It seemed to me to be a most comprehensive, useful and constructive addition to any discussion such as this. I would go further and say that it would be supported in the main from all quarters of the House. That strikes me as the great difficulty in tackling this question of Irish fisheries. I take it we are all agreed on the importance of this industry both as it exists and as it should be developed. The whole question is, how are we going, first of all, even to preserve it and, secondly, develop it as it should be developed? I can forecast in my own mind, at any rate, the line of defence that the Minister for Fisheries may have to adopt. He will possibly tell us once more that he is in total agreement with most of the observations, and even some of the suggestions, that have come from all quarters of the House; but—and this is a very big but—he is not in a position to accede to those requests and to further those suggestions because he is not the Minister for Finance. If that is, as it possibly may be, the line to be adopted by the Minister for Fisheries—and quite a comprehensible one for any Minister in his position——

No, sir.

——I would urge upon him to attack the Minister for Finance.

The Deputy must understand that there is a collective responsibility and I cannot throw a matter on the Minister for Finance, even though it were his business. I have as much responsibility over what the Minister for Finance does as he has over what I do and if I adopted the line suggested it would be a ridiculous line and I am perfectly certain it would not be accepted by the House.

I quite accept the Minister's explanation and, of course, his acceptance of responsibility. But at the same time, being in the position as he is of Minister for Fisheries, I cannot get it out of my head that, anxious as he is to further that Department and do everything in his power to develop that Department, he does keep knocking on the door of the Minister for Finance. I hope he does, because to my mind there is the real crux of our situation. We are a small country with, in proportion to our size and resources, a large seaboard, and the difficulty seems to be how we are to protect that seaboard from foreign incursions and how we are to assist the fishermen along the seaboard in their daily occupations.

In regard to the first question, undoubtedly what has been said and quoted from the leader-writer in the "Cork Examiner" does seem rather absurd—that one little gun-boat is to be sufficient to protect the whole of our coast. I do not know how many gun-boats it would take adequately to protect our coast and therefore it is not in that direction that I seek protection. Rather would I be anxious to have the Minister state, if he would be in a position to do so, what are, if any, the definite delimitations of our seaboard; namely, whether there is an international three-mile limit, and whether he is in a position to clear the air and let everyone know where that three-mile limit begins and ends. That may seem rather tautological, but in the case that recently occurred off County Wexford, which was heard before the District Justice in the City of Waterford, the question arose as to whether the limit was to be taken from the mainland or from the Saltee Islands. Neither the District Justice nor others seemed to be in a position definitely to state which course was the proper one. It seemed to ordinary common sense that if these islands are rateable property within the rateable bounds of the County Wexford therefore the limit, whatever it might be, ought to commence from the outskirts of these islands and not from the mainland. I am in the dark on that score and I would like the Minister to give us some definite information.

Undoubtedly, there have been a great many incursions into home waters by foreign boats and trawlers. I do not know what exactly these French fishing boats are doing around the coast of Ireland. The patrol, or gunboats, however you may describe them, are cruising round and I do not know what their object is. I would like the Minister to enlighten us because all we know about the matter is what we have read in the shape of interviews in the newspapers. It would be well for us to know whether any negotiations are proceeding such as were suggested by the skipper of one of these boats the other day in an interview with a newspaper reporter, or whether they are just cruising round to see if there are any more odd lobsters that their fellow-countrymen might be able to pick up. We always seem to be up against a boundary question, whether we are discussing fish or flesh or good red herrings. Here we certainly have a boundary question again. It would be well if the Minister could enlighten us upon this question of international delimitation, if any such delimitation exists.

I would also like to support Deputy Mullins in his appeal with regard to the necessity for two solvent securities for the purchase of boats, gear, etc., for the coming year. I know the difficulty. I have experienced it myself in interviews I have had with fisher folk, constituents of mine, who tell me that it is next to impossible for them to get these securities. After all, as I have often thought, if they can get these solvent securities in order to raise a certain sum of money where is the necessity for them to go to the Department at all? If these poor, struggling fishermen can get two solvent securities to raise a certain sum of money, what is the necessity for them to go to the Ministry for a loan? On the contrary, I say that in order to avoid the necessity of having to get securities like that, they should get whatever help would be possible from the Minister. There is a great deal to be said on their behalf and I hope the Minister will take it into consideration.

There is also the question of the arrears due for past loans. There is something to be said on these grounds, that at the time these loans were raised there was a possibility that prices were higher than they are now, and it might be possible to repay, if not all those loans, at least a considerable portion of them.

However, there is one thing that emerges from this debate. There seems to be unanimous satisfaction at the setting up of this Irish Fisheries Co-operative Association. The Minister should be very pleased at the manner in which it has been received, and at the good wishes that he has got from all quarters of the House about this Association. I wish to join with others in welcoming this Association. I do hope that the Minister, in spite of the fact that he is so loyal to his colleagues, including the Minister for Finance, will only keep knocking a little harder at that door, and that he will endeavour to get a little more in order to subsidise and encourage the industry which is latent there, which is absolutely at our very doors, and which, I am sorry to say from what I understand, is in its present position largely owing to the lack of financial support.

It is all very well, I know, to cry out for financial assistance. But as has been pointed out, there are other things that can be cut down or that can be done without. Here is an industry that is second to agriculture, if it is indeed second. It is actually there for the taking over and working. Not only is it there, but if we do not utilise it, it will be utilised and worked by others. It seems a crying shame that we cannot do something more to push on that industry and to encourage its development, a course, I suggest, far more profitable than starting new industries or proposing new means of employment. Here there is no need of speaking of a new industry when we have at our hands one actually in existence or which is capable of being made second to none in this country, or in any of the other countries that go to make up these islands.

Domhnall Ua Buachalla

Maidir le ceist na n-iascairí, sé mo bharúil nach bhfuil aon intinn ag an Rialtas ná ag an Aire rud ar bith do dhéanamh chun ár n-iascairí do chosaint ó sna creachadóirí iasachta a thagann isteach annso chun ár n-iasc do thógaint leo. Níl a fhios agam an é is cúis leis sin, nach bhfuil an comhacht ag an Aire no nach bhfuil sé de mhisneach aige no ag an Rialtas, ordú do thabhairt do Chaptaen an "Mhuirchú" urchar do scaoile leis na creachadóirí seo chun a theasbáint dóibh nach bhfuil cead acu teacht isteach annso agus ár gcuid éisc do scuaba leo. Tá oileán beag, taobh thuaidh den Euróip, nach bhfuil ach beagán daoine ina gcomhnuidhe ann. Tháinig bád iascaireachta ó Shasana chun an oileáin sin le déanaí. Chuaidh an bád san laistigh den teorainn agus cad a thuit amach? Gabhadh an bád agus do baineadh na húirlisí iascaireachta de. Cuireadh fíneáil £3,000 air agus do dhíol lucht an bháid an méid sin. Níl a fhios agam cén chúis nach bhfuil sé in ár gcumas an rud céanna do dhéanamh annso. Seachtain ó shoin, rinne an tAire Gnóthaí Coigríche a dhícheall chun a chur i gcéill dúinn go bhfuil saoirse againn. Má táimíd saor, mar adeir sé, cé'n chúis nach bhfuil sé in ár gcumas na hiascaireachtaí do chosaint? Bhí a fhios againn-ne, agus bhí a fhios aige féin, nach bhfuilimíd saor. Má táimíd saor, cé'n chúis nach ndéantar rud ar na hiascairí? Deir sé linn go bhfuil bád ag an Roinn agus go bhfuil gunnaí air. B'fhéidir nach bhfuil ann ach gunnaí bréige. Ach má tá bád ann agus gunnaí air cé'n chúis nach gcuirtear in úsáid iad? Cé'n chúis go bhfuil na báid choigríche seo in ann teacht isteach agus ár gcuid éisc do ghoid? Cé'n chúis nach bhfuil sé i gcumas an Rialtais na fíneálacha do bhailiú?

Tá scéal i bpáipéirí an lae iniu mar gheall ar bháid airm atá ag teacht ón Fhrainnc chun ár n-iascaireachtaí do chosaint ó bháid iascaireachta na bhFranncach. Má's fíor é sin, is ait an scéal é. B'fhearr i bhfad níos mó bád beag a bheith againn agus meaisín-ghunnaí orra agus iad seo do chur in úsáid má tá gá leo. Tá bád-chosanta againn agus isé an t-ainm atá air ná "Muirchú," no "Cú na Mara." Isé mo bharúil go mb'fhearr é sin d'atharú agus "Uan na Mara" do thabhairt air. B'fhearr i bhfad báid bheaga a bheith againn agus gunnaí do chur orra. Dá ndéanfaí sin, ní bheadh na hiaseairí coigríche ag teacht isteach agus ag goid ár n-éise.

I do not intend to say very much in connection with this Vote, because it has occupied a fair amount of the time of this House already, and practically everything that can be said has been said by other speakers. I rise for the express purpose of getting a definite answer to a question that I put down some time ago.

On the 21st November, 1928, I put a question to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries as to whether he received a copy of a resolution passed by the Galway Urban District Council requesting the establishment of a fishing school in the Galway urban area for the Claddagh fishermen and, if so, what action it was intended to take in the matter. The Minister replied as follows:—"I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. Proposals for the establishment of a small number of preparatory schools along the lines of paragraph 229 of the Report of the Commission on Technical Education, for providing suitable education and training for boys likely to be engaged in the fishing industry, and for the appointment, as suggested in paragraph 231 of the same Report, of itinerant instructors to conduct short courses of instruction for part-time fishermen, are at present being examined by my Department and the Department of Education. In this connection the claims of the district referred to in the question have not been overlooked."

As I say, that was in November, 1928. Last year, when this Vote was under discussion in July, I made reference to that matter in my contribution to the debate, and to a lot of other things which I do not desire to repeat here, because, honestly. I consider that the Minister, when this Vote is under discussion is more to be pitied than blamed. His task is a thankless one. He is Minister for a Department that is handicapped in many ways. Every year when this Vote comes up for discussion there is always something new introduced. For instance now, in order that the Department might hide its face, we are told that the deep sea fisheries are about to be developed and that a Special Committee is considering the best form of their development.

The Deputy is quite wrong; they will have nothing to do with deep-sea fisheries.

Mr. Jordan

I understood that they would.

The Deputy ought to look it up again.

Mr. Jordan

They will have something to do with fisheries anyhow.

Not deep-sea.

Mr. Jordan

Well, with fisheries. That is the decoy that is thrown out now in order that we should not give the criticism to this Vote which it richly deserves.

Give it all.

Mr. Jordan

No. Really I am serious when I say that the Minister is more to be pitied than blamed.

I do not want anybody's pity. I never look for it.

Mr. Jordan

The Minister for Agriculture recently said that he heard that I was going to join the Salvation Army, so I must practise for it, and I am not going to be hard on the Minister for Fisheries. I want an answer from him in regard to the matter I have raised. Last year, when replying, owing to the length of the discussion, the Minister occupied only about twelve minutes.

I had exactly one minute and a half to reply.

Mr. Jordan

The Minister would nearly win the Lincoln. I hope when he is replying, now that he will have sufficient time, he will definitely state whether these preparatory schools were established along the lines laid down in the Report of the Commission on Technical Education and, if they have been established, where they are, whether there is one in Galway and, if not, whether he is going to stand over this statement he made that in connection with the preparatory schools the claims of the district referred to in my question have not been overlooked. I would like the Minister also to state when we may look forward to the establishment of a school in the Claddagh area, an area which is dependent on the fishing industry for its existence.

You do not want it out in the Claddagh?

Mr. Jordan

I want it somewhere in the West.

I rise to support the amendment in the name of Deputy Derrig to refer this Vote back for consideration. My reason for coming to that decision is that I am not satisfied with the present condition of the fishing industry, nor can I hope for great things when I consider the history of the Department in the past. We have been told that a Bill is to be introduced but we have frequently been told the same thing and so far the Bill has not materialised. Until that Bill has materialised I think that many of the bouquets which have been thrown at the Minister should be reserved. In looking up previous estimates I found some things that are particularly striking. I notice that for fishery services this year there has been allocated the sum of £9,800. Last year it was £18,000. The total in all is £47,270 and the Minister explains that the reduction is due to the Ministry having charge of fisheries only for a certain number of months until the new Association about to be set up comes into operation. There is, however, nothing definite about it and consequently we have to take the Estimates as being for the services up to the 31st March, 1931.

It is on that basis we criticise it, and we cannot afford to criticise it on what the Minister may do within the next few months. It may take several months to bring into operation the proposed Association to deal with the fishing industry. I do not think that this reduction to £9,800 in the fishery services is merely on account of the proposed Association which is about to be set up to take charge of fisheries. Rather do I consider, from looking up the Estimates of previous years and the history of the Department, that it is a definite reduction to fit in with the year-by-year reduction of the expenditure on the fishery services. I went back over the records and I found that in the year 1925-26 a sum of £39,000 was devoted to this service; the following year £34,000; the year after that £27,000; in 1928-29 £24,000; in 1929-30 £18,000, and this year £9,860. If we go into these figures we will find that of this £9,860 about £5,000—the exact figure is £5,050—is devoted to sea fishing. I think it is not very difficult to plot a graph to show the gradual decay which has taken place in this industry. Side by side with that you might place the increased cost of the Department. I do not wish to criticise or to be taken as being opposed to natural increases in salary, due to increments and so on, but taking it by way of contrast it is rather interesting to find that salaries have increased practically every year in that Department, whereas the expenditure on services has been reduced from £39,000 to £9,000.

These figures, I am sure, give some indication of the steps that are being taken in the Department and show whether the industry is thriving or not. I do not think that anybody can satisfy himself that the industry is going ahead. It is a vital industry. There are places in Co. Galway, in Connemara, to which, during the years of the war, special trains had to be brought to have the huge catches of fish conveyed to the markets. In one place, Roundstone, where there were several boats, there are now only two. In the Claddagh district, and in other districts in Galway. similar conditions obtain. Indeed, a similar state of affairs obtains all along the West coast. I think that the most serious aspect of the industry is that it is merely dying; it is not dead. It would be better if it were dead, so that the Government would have to consider replacing it by some other industry or building up the industry out of the new.

People who might criticise are being lulled to sleep by the statement that such and such is being done for the improvement of the fisheries. The amount under the heading of loans for boats and gear is £1,250; last year it was £5,000. I am told by fishermen at Galway that a good boat would cost roughly about £2,000 and £1,250 is the total that the Ministry can give as loans for boats and gear in the whole State. We find that the estimate for re-conditioning boats takes £50 and maintenance £100. Very little work in the way of re-conditioning a boat can be done for £50. I do not quite understand how £100 is used for maintenance. We have been told that the Minister intends to consider and has been considering old claims for money advances to the fishermen and that satisfactory progress has been made. That at all events is a satisfactory step and it is one of the things with which we are pleased, because on the many occasions on which money has been asked for here, we have been given promises, and down the country along the coast we see nothing as a result of these promises.

I mentioned here before, and I got confirmation of the statement from the Minister in reply to a question I raised a year ago, that he has nine boats in Galway. These boats are in various stages of decay just like the industry itself. Some of them are useless; some of them are gone beyond the stage of re-conditioning and that £50 for re-conditioning in the Estimate would not go very far with them. There are others which are fairly good and some others that with a little expenditure could be made seaworthy. The fishermen are clamouring for these boats. They were taken from the fishermen by the present Ministry and they were brought into Galway and left down at the docks. Of course they are removed now to the most remote dock in Galway where even a Minister, if he visits the City of the Tribes, may not be able to see them. Only a fortnight ago I went to see if anything had come of the promises and if there was any indication of new life in the fishing industry round the docks or at the fishing stations in Galway. I found none. I found nothing but decayed boats huddled up together and falling asunder. A sum of £50 will not re-condition these boats and the Minister will not loan them or present them to the fishermen. Rather will he allow them to remain there to the worms, falling to pieces.

There are also in the Galway district nine buildings which belong to the Ministry. One of these, which cost an enormous amount of money, fell to pieces owing to storms and lack of attention and had to be sold in pieces. There is none of it left now except the ruins, the part which was built with stone and mortar. That is all that is left. There are other ruins also along the coasts, which are an indication of the steps taken by the Ministry in handling the fishing industry and bringing it to the present stage of decay and dying that it is in. Fishermen who seem to be well informed tell me that there is a considerable amount of gear and equipment in the stores in Galway and that they have none. They are not able to go fishing for want of gear and tackle and they tell me that some of this gear is absolutely rotting. I do not know whether that is true or not, but that is the statement that they make.

There is one question that a large number of fishermen in the Galway district consider the greatest factor tending towards the decay of the fishing industry in that district. It is this question that has been brought up here over and over again since this debate started. That is the question of protection and the question of poaching by foreign trawlers. Poachers have been captured and have been let off seat free. What is the use of that? Poachers were captured in Galway Bay well inside the three-mile limit and were let off scot free. It is costing £8,000 to run the patrol boat. I spoke to the captain and members of the crew of that boat. I am informed that it has not a sufficient crew to be able to hold a poacher which it captures. Of course it has no gun. In these days considerable attention is paid to the French poachers. There is nothing very much about the British poachers, but as far as I can understand, in the Galway district it is the British poachers who are doing all the damage. Welsh poachers, Scotch poachers and English poachers come in there, and very rarely do I hear anything about French poachers.

In connection with British fishing trawlers I asked the Minister whether within the past twelve months—this is a year ago now—any British trawlers have been captured fishing within the forbidden limits, whether fines were imposed, and, if so, whether these fines have been paid. His reply states: "During the period referred to in the Question one British steam trawler was captured fishing within the forbidden limits"—evidently the limits are definitely outlined—"and her gear seized and sold. Two others were captured, but their gear was not seized. No fines were imposed." What is the meaning of it all? What is the meaning of paying £8,000 a year for a patrol boat? What is the idea of all the talk about protection? Our fish are being swept away by these trawlers, our fishermen's lines have been broken. I have letters here to prove it. Even their own lives have been endangered by these trawlers. When the local fishermen tried to get the identification marks on the foreign boats the poaching trawlers circled around and tried to sink them. Those boats trawl the bottom of the sea. They destroy the beds. Fish will not come there to spawn again in a generation. So the fishermen say. And all for nothing. No gear is seized, no fines are imposed. There was one boat captured a few years ago in Galway. I think it was on the night of the election It was released, and going out the Bay they put down their nets again and fished, and they were thirty miles inside the three-mile limit.

Thirty yards.

No, from Arran to Galway, from Galway Bay out. The three-mile limit was taken from Arran, and it is more than thirty yards from Galway to Arran. It takes three hours by boat to get to Galway. I think it is about 30 miles or more. They were fishing all the way out from Galway, after having been taken in for having committed an infringement of the international fishing laws.

What, I say again, is the necessity for all the pother? Why are they arrested and released again? Why are we asked to vote £8,000? If there were no other reason why Deputies should oppose this Vote I submit this is one reason. I was asked a question by fishermen in Galway as to whether any fines had been paid in the past six or seven years. I would like the Minister to answer that and to state the amount. Has the "Muirchú" power to hold the captured trawlers until the fines are paid? I say again if the fines are not recoverable what is the use of the "Muirchú"? Is there any power to hold the French lobster poachers?

In some places here years ago £120 fine was imposed in pre-war days and all the gear confiscated. Why is that departed from? It is stated that some of the gear that has been seized was sold in Dublin and that it is bought by other trawling companies and used again by poaching trawlers. I do not know whether that is true or not. That idea obtains in the Galway district. Before I depart from that perhaps it would be interesting to read a statement that was made and signed by 140 fishermen from Galway who are well-known anyhow by the Deputies from Galway to be fishermen. I do not intend to read their names, but anyone who wishes can have the list. It is headed "Stealing our Fish," 2nd March, 1929—English Trawlers in Galway Bay. Claddagh Men Angry.

"The Claddagh fishermen—a patient, long-suffering people— have made representations to the Government to take drastic action to deal with the English trawler owners who are stealing the fish in Galway Bay. We have received the following in reference to the matter:—We, the undersigned Galway fishermen, beg to bring to your notice the following state of affairs that has existed in Galway for the past fortnight:—

"Dozens of English steam trawlers are reaping a rich harvest of the sea from the Cliffs of Moher into eight miles of Mutton Island Light, and thus depriving us of a way of living. They are trawling by day and night up to the East of Black Head and we are helpless to prevent them. They have the whole bay scraped up, and we hope some of our T.D.s will take the matter up and put a stop to this crying scandal. The ‘Helga' or ‘Muirchú' seems to be unable to stop this poaching. For the past four or five years the English poachers have become more daring and respect no line or net fishermen. They seem to own the bay for themselves."

In connection with that, I had this year another statement as a result of which I went to the Department to ask them to send the "Muirchú" to Galway Bay district. I think it took three weeks before the boat arrived in Galway Bay. That was an exact parallel with what happened a year ago, when, as a result of telegrams that were sent by various people in the Galway district, including the Captain of the "Dun Angus," it took from the 21st February to the 13th March before the "Muirchú" sailed into Galway Bay. Of course, by that time the poachers had known that the matter had been raised. However, some of them were captured. This is the letter which I received:—

"The Claddagh boats fishing yesterday after shooting 2,400 fathoms of spillets, each boat twice returned with small catches of haddock, cod, ling and whiting (this is the season for above classes of fish). They report after fishing around South Island (Arran) out as far as the Cliffs of Moher—poor fishing and no wonder at it, at this time of the year when round fish should be plenty up to Black Head and off the North shore of Spiddal—

The following Skippers report—

Michael Harvey—Boat, "Ave Maria" Owen Fitzgerald—Boat, "Volunteer" Martin Oliver— Boat. "True Light" Tim McHugh—Boat. "Shamrock."

(1) We have seen the steam trawlers at Hags Head yesterday morning—right in by the shore— This tallies with the Arran man's report of last week of a steam trawler working away for 3 days and clearing out loaded— after robbing the fish. From now on the trawlers will play the devil with the place the same as they did last year unless a few captures are made in time and heavy fines inflicted. It must be the same as it was in pre-war days—£120 and all gear confiscated—but the gear to be publicly burned (not sent to Dublin to be bought over by other steam trawling companies).

There is no use in the "Helga" coming in by daylight. Let her spend a night around Arran and do her duty—or there'll be dirty work started, if the fishermen are to be robbed of a living this year again. The latter part of that shows the feeling of these people. It shows that they cannot remain quiet much longer. The editor of this paper started by saying: "The Claddagh fishermen—a patient, long suffering people—have made representations to the Government to take drastic action to deal with the English trawler owners who are stealing the fish in Galway Bay." The fishermen say they cannot stand it any longer They see their harvest being filched away from them by foreign trawlers and that the Department are not taking sufficient steps to deal with the poaching.

From the reply I received to the question in regard to the three-mile limit and from other answers I heard the Minister give, I am not quite sure that he is sure that the three-mile limit is defined. The Captain of the "Muirchú" told me that some other foreign boats could come in further in the Waterford area than the British because of some obsolete international law. Perhaps the Minister could throw some light on that. These are some of the things that I wished to speak about.

There is just one other point about the poaching and it is this— that along with the immediate destruction of the fish and of the spawning beds, these poachers when they make a capture gut the fish and throw the waste into the sea. Wherever that lodges, of course, there will be no spawning for a considerable period.

Another point that I did not hear mentioned during the debate. It is that the shoals of certain classes of fish are broken up and sent farther out. There are large numbers of line fishermen in the Arran district. There are some 20 boats there and they could take a good toll from the sea if they had proper equipment, but the cost of equipment has gone up so much since pre-war days that it is impossible for them to carry on as much fishing work as they would like to, and it has been suggested that the Ministry would consider selling the gear that they have in Galway. I think, according to the scale of decay since 1925 or 1926, that some of the gear that was held at that time or earlier must still be in the hands of the Department at Galway. It may have deteriorated, but if given at reduced prices to the fishermen it would help them to engage more in the fishing industry, a thing that they desire. I would ask the Minister to consider that point. A net that used to cost about £1 5s. 0d. now costs something like £6. There are twenty curraghs in the Arran districts without lines. Why not help them for line fishing for cod, ling and haddock? It is getting late for that now, but the mackerel season is just coming in and also, in some places, the herring season will soon be here.

That reminds me of another matter. If the Department wait until they set up the new Association this year's harvest of the sea will have gone by the board, and some steps must be taken immediately to help the fishermen. Every day from this on the mackerel fishing will be going by the board, and from June on the herring fishing. Some arrangement should be made by the Department for loans. Some of the ten boats I have mentioned are lying there in a rotting condition, and some of them are in a pretty good condition. They are grouped together in a remote dock at Galway. These should be reconditioned and given to the fishermen to tide over the interval between now and the time when the Association will be functioning. We would want more than the £50 to do that. The Department will have to take these boats out of that, anyway. I saw the other day where the Urban Council of Galway were discussing the appearance of the harbour. It was pointed out that there were many old boats lying about in it. One councillor said that most of those boats belonged to the Fishery Department, and that is quite true. An order was made that the Department should take these boats out of the harbour, and it is better to give them to the fishermen than to take them out and sink them. The Department, I think, do not intend to consider the question of deep-sea fishing. If the industry is a vital industry, and if boats can afford to come from France and Great Britain to the fishery regions close to this country, why cannot our own fishermen be fitted out to do it?

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

If there is any Association set up to develop fisheries, and if it is worth having an Association for that purpose, that cannot be done without money. If you want to develop the fishing industry, you must develop both the sea and inshore fishing. There is another point. Some time ago an inquiry was held at Galway into the conditions of the salmon fishery there. Those present on behalf of the fishermen were precluded from raising the question of drift-net salmon fishing in Galway Bay. There are other places where drift-net fishing for salmon around the mouth of rivers and a good distance out is allowed, but the representatives for the fishermen—I was there myself—were prevented from discussing this question.

I suppose it was not within the terms of reference of the particular inquiry. I do not know the facts of that particular inquiry, but if they were refused a hearing on that matter it was because it was outside the terms of reference of that particular inquiry. If there is a desire for an inquiry into the matter of salmon drifting in Galway Bay that is another question.

There is. I did not intend to blame the Department for that. I mentioned the fact to show that there is a considerable amount of opinion in Galway in favour of drift net fishing for salmon, and also to point out that it was only in 1913 that a bye-law was passed prohibiting such fishing there. The reason which was advanced to me by the Department, when I discussed this informally, was that that would prevent the fish going up the river, and thereby have a bad effect on the salmon fishery up that river. I do not think that it would have such a serious effect on the fishing industry as the killing of fish which takes place at the salmon weir in Galway, and which is carried on year after year by the people who own the fishery there. On behalf of Colonel Cross, the owner of the fishery, it was stated in my presence: "Our business is to kill every fish that passes up." When they have that intention, there is very little chance for fish to pass up the narrow salmon weir. There is very much less chance of fish getting up under Colonel Cross's system than there would be of fish being missed in Galway Bay. Another point about that is that a certain amount of income would come in to the conservators, as the fishermen are prepared to take out licences. A deputation discussed this matter with me some time ago, and informed me that twenty-five men in College Road and forty-four in the Claddagh are prepared to engage in this particular class of fishing.

I wish again to emphasise the fact that unless proper protection is given to the fishermen in that district that fishing is bound to die out. It has been suggested that motor boats could be used for protecting the fisheries, but from what I have been told I do not know that they would meet the case. They would be fast, of course, and be able to see the boats fishing, but we can see them at present from the land within half a mile of the coast. What good is that? The "Dun Angus" can go round and try and get their identification marks, but the poachers are ready for that. Suppose the mark is I.M.O. 14. What they do in such a case is, they hang a board or a bag over the mark so as to prevent identification, and instead of I.M.O. 14 you might get I.M.I. or M. 14, the other letters and figures being obliterated either by tar or hanging something over them. I think that with small motor boats you will have difficulty also. These poachers have tried to sink our fishermen's boats, and they have cut their nets. It would be much easier for them to do that if the boat were a small one, and if you are going to have boats without guns.

I was interested in the speech just made, and I am sorry that the Deputy spoiled it by one remark, when he implied that we should reject this Vote because of the fact that £8,000 was being spent for the protection of fisheries. Even if the sum is inadequate, surely that is not a reason why we should reject the Vote? I am sorry also that in the course of the debate so many Deputies have shown ignorance and lack of appreciation of the principles which govern international practice with regard to territorial waters. I had the privilege seven years ago of assisting in drawing up the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1923 in reference to this matter. I had previously studied the matter, and I gained a lot of information in the course of the discussion at that Conference. I realised that there was no international agreement as to what should be the limit of territorial waters. There are even countries in the North of Europe where twelve miles is considered to be the limit. We ourselves have ratified a Treaty here recognising a twelve-mile limit in America, as far as prohibition enforcement is concerned, although we do not recognise that limit as far as fisheries are concerned. The three-mile limit was originally established over 100 years ago as being the limit of gunfire at the time. Of course, that is now entirely out of date. The British Government, I understand, are anxious that the three-mile limit should be enforced all over the world. We, I think, gave tentative agreement to that, at any rate as far as fisheries are concerned. There is also the matter of the point-to-point bays. It has grown up in the course of fishery law throughout Western Europe that certain bays should be considered as extra-territorial, even if the ultimate limit between two points was more than 6 miles. That is the point the Scotch were very particular about. They have succeeded as a result of many lawsuits and discussions in establishing the extra-territorial nature of many of their bays and fjords which are wider at the mouth than six miles. That has only grown up as a result of custom.

There is one interesting matter. I do not know if the Minister has any views upon it. About twenty years ago the Attorney-General for the United Kingdom, in the course, I think, of an international case, maintained that the Irish Sea and St. George's Channel, so-called, were British territorial waters, that it was an enclosed sea. The courts did not accept that view, but I think the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom still maintains this point of view. If that is the case, then as a result of the division between the United Kingdom and the Free State our territorial waters extend to between twenty-five and thirty miles inside St. George's Channel and the Irish Sea. That is a matter in which we were joined with His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom in order to enforce a right which perhaps is a stretching of justice.

Now whereas in Great Britain in the last hundred years the British Government always stood up for the rights of the fishermen, and supported their claims for territorial waters, and supported the customary claims of the various bays which were more than three miles between the points, I think it is true to say that the British Government did not do that as far as Ireland was concerned. That is all the more reason why the Minister and the Government now should take energetic steps to stand up for our rights in this respect. It is, I think, rather a disgrace for us that the French Government should send over a fleet of gunboats to defend our territorial water rights against their own citizens. I understand from the Press that some of those boats have been lent to the French Fishery Department by the French Navy. If the Minister should decide that it would be advisable for us to adopt the suggestion put forward, on many occasions both by myself and, I understand, to-day, by Deputy Mullins, that we should employ a certain number of flying-boats for our coastal fishery protection, I think that, following the French precedent, we might very reasonably borrow those flying-boats from the National Army. There is another matter, not suggested here, I think, to-day, and I do not know whether the Minister has ever considered it: it is that our frontier with the North of Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, is, as far as I can make out, over three-quarters water and that we have fresh territorial waters as well as salt territorial waters. There are a considerable number of lakes all round the boundary between us and the Six Counties, and I doubt if the Minister or the Minister for External Affairs has ever traced a line in these lakes showing what are the limits of fishing rights and custom rights between us and the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland in these waters.

Deputy Cassidy suggested or demanded that at least two boats be provided for Donegal—one in Lough Foyle and another on the West Coast. If the representatives of all other counties were as energetic as Deputy Cassidy, then, I think, the expenditure of the State in connection with this matter would be very considerable. I think that Sligo and Mayo would also be entitled to two boats. Galway, Clare, Kerry and Cork would be entitled to two boats each. Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, Dublin and Louth would also be entitled to two boats each if Donegal was entitled to two, and that would amount to about 20 boats to be paid for by the Minister. That was the claim or the suggestion of Deputy Cassidy.

Now with regard to the use of flying boats for fishery protection there are many difficulties. The Minister knows that in a rough sea it is very difficult for a flying boat to alight near the poachers and to capture them and to bring them into port. Not only that but on occasions it has happened that when the flying boat landed near the poachers they threw acid on the wings of the 'plane to prevent it pursuing them further. In my opinion these difficulties could be overcome if we had a few patrol flying boats operating round the coast fitted with wireless and connected with two or three base ships which could use the flying boats as scouts and could then pursue the poachers and bring them into harbour. In fact, it is happening now in France that a flying boat is used as an adjunct to fishing fleets. They have the flying boats in France connected with wireless and the machine is flown over the western coast of France discovering the various shoals of sardines, mackerel and other types of fish. Communication is then established by wireless with those at the base of a particular fishing fleet. This saves them a great deal of time wandering round over the seas hunting for fish. That example might well be followed in this country, but I think that is, perhaps, more for the future.

In view of all the criticism that has been directed against the Minister, I think it is only right to say that our competitors, the French, the English and the Scotch, have had a very long start on us. They have had 100 years of State assistance, and they also have had 100 years of solid development, with capital being put into their fishing organisations. In the course of time this neglect will be remedied as far as we are concerned. In the meantime, until such time as we have attained the position when our own money will be put into the development of our fisheries, we should stand up for our full territorial rights in our territorial waters. If we do not stand up for our territorial rights then, by constant use by other countries, those rights will be lost by reason of our non-usage and by customary violation by other countries. For that reason I hope the Minister will take very drastic steps to protect our rights until such time as our people are in a position to take advantage of them.

There are one or two points that I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister for Fisheries. I have already drawn his attention to an inquiry appointed by the First Dáil in 1921 into the condition of the fisheries in the Killarney lakes. The First Dáil realised the importance of Killarney as a centre for salmon, and they thought it advisable to send down a Commission. That Commission sat in Killarney for eight days, and took evidence from the Fishermen's Association, the net holders and fishermen generally. I asked the Minister if he had received a copy of the findings of the Commission, and he informed me that he had not. Now that this new Association has been established, I think it would be no harm if the findings of the Commission were submitted to it.

I have a suggestion to bring to the notice of the Minister with reference to the question of raising the nets during the months of June and July. I think that matter has been submitted already to the Minister by the Killarney Anglers' Association. During the months of June and July young salmon, or what are known as peel, are captured. These peel or young salmon are really the prolific salmon the fish responsible for the spawning during the winter months. As everyone knows, during June and July, salmon fetch about one-third or one-fourth of the price that they would fetch in February or March. It would not be any great loss to the net holders if the question of holding over the nets during these months was decided upon. I believe the net holders on the Killarney lakes are willing to hold over netting during June and July, provided the net holders at the mouths of the rivers do likewise. I believe if one of the Department's inspectors visited Killarney he would be able to get over that difficulty. There is little use in stocking the hatcheries throughout the country if the young salmon are netted during these months.

Another point I would like to refer to is the provision of sufficient hatcheries and the re-stocking of them with proper ova. The third point I would like to mention is a suggestion that has been put up by many fishermen's organisations in the country. It may be a rather startling suggestion, but anybody going into the question of inland fisheries will find that it is really the solution of many difficulties. I refer to the removal of nets at the mouths of rivers. I may be met with the answer that these people have statutory rights, but I believe those who have such rights could be compensated. My real reason in emphasising this point is that I believe by raising the nets at the mouths of the rivers and allowing a free run of the salmon up stream, you give the farmers who own the land adjoining the rivers an opportunity of getting the fish which, in the natural course of events, should be theirs. I wonder does any member of this House agree with the principle which prevails that one man can stand at the mouth of a river and capture every single fish, as Deputy Powell has indicated in the case of a certain colonel in Galway. Those people can throw a net across a river and capture every fish that ordinarily would run up the river. I wonder is it a principle that the Government would stand over in this democratic age? I contend that that principle should not be allowed to exist.

If you want a sure means of preserving salmon during the spawning season you must depend on the sympathy of the farmers whose lands adjoin the rivers. You cannot expect their sympathy if they come to the conclusion that they are merely preserving and safeguarding the fish for one or two gentlemen who may possess rights at the mouth of a river. Certain Land Acts have been passed and in these it has been set out that fishing rights go with the land. I am a long time angling on the Killarney lakes and rivers and I often wonder why I paid £2 for a salmon licence when I know that the fish that should ordinarily come up the rivers are not permitted to come up; they are captured at the mouths. Let me take a case in point. The Duke of Devonshire comes here and he controls the whole Blackwater River from the mouth to the very source.

I do not mind if the Minister contradicts me. I know more about inland fishing than he does. I say that the Duke of Devonshire practically owns the Blackwater. He is allowed to net it at a certain weir below Lismore. We are led to believe that a certain amount of salmon escape through what is known as the Queen's Pass. That is all bunkum, because the netters take jolly good care that the fish are not let up the pass.

As regards licences for salmon rods, I do not think there is any sense of proportion or justice in charging an unfortunate angler on the Galway or Killarney lakes £2 for a salmon licence. He has to take a chance of catching one of the few salmon that may escape at the mouths of the rivers. As against that charge you have a fee of £4 only placed on the man at the river mouth who has a much better opportunity of catching the fish. There is no sense of proportion there, and that is one matter that should be immediately remedied. As I am on the question of salmon licences, I want to ask what is the idea of inviting over cross-Channel anglers? These anglers have to pay £2 for a licence, they stay from two to four weeks, and that, in my opinion, should be ample. I do not think that it is fair that a cross-Channel angler should be invited to this country and be asked to pay a £2 licence for fishing in Killarney; then if he goes on to Kenmare he has to take out another 10/- licence, and possibly if he should go up to Mallow a third licence for 10/-. What is the idea of imposing these penalties? There is no sense in that.

In the first place it is the law, and in the second place it was largely at the request of the Conference of Conservators, who look after the fisheries of the country as a whole, that the law was passed.

Mr. Crowley

It is not the law of common sense, anyway.

The Deputy's common sense may be beyond and above other people's common sense.

Mr. Crowley

I wonder would it be fair to ask the Minister now if he has got the report of the findings of the Commission appointed by the First Dáil.

I dare say my Department has.

Mr. Crowley

There is one appeal I would make to the Minister at the moment, and I think I am justified in making it. In that matter I am not alone. I am in company, for once in my life-time, with the Minister for Education and the Minister for Fisheries. My point is that if there are to be any experiments carried out in fisheries, and I presume there are, these experiments should be carried out on the Killarney lakes. The Minister has already appointed a Board and this matter will be a test of the sincerity of that Board. Its sincerity will be proved very shortly. I say that because certain experiments have got to be carried out in inland fisheries. I do not know any particular place more suitable for those experiments than the Killarney Lakes. Fishing experts all over the world have declared that owing to the sandy, gravelly nature of the lakes and the continuous fresh water they are practically a sanctuary for salmon. I put it to the Minister that when they are going to carry out experiments, they should carry out these experiments in the Lakes of Killarney. The Minister should be interested in this matter himself, because the Commission appointed by the First Dáil suggested that, and he was a member of the First Dáil. I again stress the point of the raising of the nets during the months of June and July at the mouths of rivers.

So far as sea fisheries are concerned this debate has taken a very unexpected turn and, to my mind, a rather unfortunate turn, if the Minister had really intended to have a serious debate on this question. It does seem strange that the Dáil should not be given any details or even any outline of the co-operative scheme which is so important and which is to mark a new era in our fisheries. In view of the statements made at Cumann na nGaedheal meetings, we all looked forward to getting an account of how this co-operative association was to work; we expected to get particulars of the lines on which the marketing would be carried out and the one hundred and one other matters with which the new organisation would be concerned.

Deputies had hoped to get at least an outline of these things, and some of us had expected that the debate would thus depart from the rather beaten path of recent years and would be of a constructive kind. We have, however, had no explanation of any kind. The Minister gave us no information with regard to the new Association, and, in fact, he gave us no idea at all as to the present position of the sea fisheries. That omission is the more remarkable in view of the fact that there has been no annual report from the Fisheries Department now since 1927. I am looking at the report issued in 1927, and I notice in the Secretary's letter a statement which says that "the report for the year 1926 will be ready for publication before the close of this year." The report issued in 1927 was for the years 1923-25, and in that report, as I have stated, a promise was made that the report for the year 1926 would be ready for publication before the close of that year. Yet, so far as I can ascertain, no report has been issued since then. We are consequently in the position that we have no information as to the Minister's policy, or the work of his Department, when he comes here with an estimate. He has not issued any report, and he gives us no facts as to the state of the industry, whether the fishermen are giving up the business, what is the reason of the decay in the fisheries, or anything on which to base a criticism of the present position. Looking into the last report—which, in my opinion, was a very interesting and very valuable report, I would say that it would be well worth repeating each year—I came across a sentence of this kind in regard to loans: "The position of these large loans, and the accumulation of heavy arrears has become one of the most serious problems confronting the Department of Fisheries, which is consulting with the Department of Finance in order to find a way out. It is evident that the position of hopeless indebtedness in which many of our fishermen are labouring, does not create a position favourable to the rapid development of the industry." That was in June, 1927. At that time the officials of the Department realised that the position of indebtedness in which many of our fishermen were labouring did not create a position favourable to the rapid development of the industry. Yet to-day they are in the same position, notwithstanding that there were promises go leor about Bills being in preparation, about a revaluation of loans, and numerous replies to questions indicating that this problem was to be dealt with without any more delay. Further on in the report there is a statement about marketing which reads:—"The Department sent an organiser into the central towns—Athlone, Mullingar, Longford, Portlaoghaise —to work up a demand in these towns. The organiser secured the interest of a large chain-store provision house, but the scheme was turned down by the directors. There is a sign that the traders in our inland towns are turning their attention towards the fish trade during the past two years, but much more energy is necessary if practical results are to be accomplished."

Was that prophecy that much more energy was to be exercised by the Department—that the Department was to follow up the initial attempt to get fish markets established in inland towns, and that they would not stop until every family in the country that could afford to buy fish and wanted it could get it without unnecessary trouble—ever acted upon? We have heard nothing since about that subject except this very significant statement in an article on herrings in the latest number of the Trade Journal: "The possibilities afforded by the motor for a similar method of distribution on more up to date lines do not seem to have been sufficiently explored." It is, to my mind, obvious for a long time past that if our fisheries are going to be kept alive in this country the one thing that was to be done was to endeavour to cultivate with the utmost energy possible the home market, because we all know there is a considerable amount of competition in the British market, and that in England there are probably more fishermen engaged in the industry than the consumption necessitates.

In connection with inland marketing, we are face to face with this proposition, that numbers of people who would gladly have fish several times a week are unable to get it, and you have the position that many shopkeepers who would be willing to stock fish cannot get it fresh from Irish ports owing to too spasmodic a service. It ought to have been obvious to the Department that specially constructed motor fish vans was and is the solution of the fish marketing problem. Most of the country towns cannot afford to maintain a separate fish shop. The only way then of giving people opportunities of buying fresh fish two or three times a week would be to arrange to have motor vans going through the country from certain ports. I put up that suggestion two years ago, but I do not think that it got any attention. I hope that that method of helping our fisheries will be considered by the new fisheries organisation. Presumably they will have a great deal to do with the marketing of fish as, I understand, they will have a great deal to do with providing boats and nets for production purposes. It is evident to everybody, I think, that in the relatively big imports amounting to £354,000 there is a considerable opportunity for Irish fishermen, and they ought to be given every encouragement to try and capture that trade while maintaining, at the same time, if possible, their export business.

No doubt we will be discussing the whole subject of fisheries in the very near future again when the new Bill comes up and when the rules of the new organisation are issued, but at present we cannot see our way to support this Vote. We are not satisfied that the Minister is taking sufficient steps to protect the fishermen in their industry. We are not satisfied at all with the delay that has been shown in connection with the new plans for developing the industry and generally we are dissatisfied with the working of the Department. For that reason we are going to vote for referring back the Estimate.

I wish to refer to the rights of riparian owners on certain rivers. Deputy Crowley referred to the rights as they exist in Kerry, but, apparently the law in Wexford is altogether different since the passing of the 1923 Land Act. Previous to that Act there were certain estates on which the riparian owners had the right to fish but these rights have ceased since 1923. I would like the Minister to explain whether that is the case and whether the riparian owners lost their rights to fish under the Act of 1923. Another matter about which complaint has been made is the question of protection and the number of bailiffs employed in the close season on a river like the Barrow. I have been informed that only four bailiffs are employed there during the close season, whereas up to eighty are employed during the fishing season, mainly for the purpose of watching legitimate fishermen. That, at all events, is what I have been told by some fishermen in that area. Another matter to which I desire to refer is the provision of nets for fishermen in tidal waters. As is generally known, last year was a disastrous season for salmon fishing. I understand that it costs about £20 to fit out a boat for fishing. I was told in the Department of Fisheries that they have no power to give loans for the provision of nets.

We have power, but we do not normally give loans for the provision of nets for salmon fishing, because they are liable to confiscation when the men break the fishery laws.

Then you have power to give loans?

We have, but we do not care to exercise it.

There is no use in having power if you do not use it.

The courts might confiscate our own property.

As I say, last year was disastrous for salmon fishermen. They might have to fit out their boats twice during the season at a cost of £40, and I was wondering whether the £3 licence could not be put back so that the men would be allowed to fish this year with last year's licence.

I have no power to do that.

In regard to the poaching by French boats off the Saltee Islands the fishermen there informed us that there are certain spawning beds which they have never fished, but that the French and British boats encroach on that area and around the great islands off Duncannon and take away the spawn of cod, haddock, and other fish. The "Muirchú" is costing £8,000, though her speed is only 36 miles a day or 1½ miles an hour, and she burns 2½ cwt. of coal for every mile she goes.

Where did you find that?

I found it in the Appropriation Account. I think it would be a good idea for us to make a contribution to the Naval Conference in London by scrapping the "Muirchú" and getting a few submarines instead. That would mean more adequate protection for our fisheries. Deputy Mullins referred to a Conference which is being held in Geneva regarding territorial rights in different countries. I think that there is only one way of getting our territorial rights and that is to have force to meet force. That is the only way to get your rights respected.

Can I discuss the question of the Gaeltacht housing on this Vote?

On the Land Commission Vote, not this.

I see that the Minister is now Minister for Fisheries and the Gaeltacht, for land and sea. I find him to be a most amphibious Minister. Whenever I want to get at him on one subject he retires under cover to the Land Commission I am not allowed to mention the question of the Gaeltacht housing.

If the Deputy looks at the Vote he will see that there are three sub-heads which will come on for discussion.

That will confine us to the Gaeltacht duties which have now fallen on the Minister. I would like to know from him whether the recommendations made in the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission in regard to land reclamation, afforestation, the building of slips and piers, and also the promises of the Minister on former occasions in connection with these matters are to be shelved completely.

I see in that portion of the Estimate which deals with the Gaeltacht, apart from the fisheries, that no money is asked for either land reclamation, afforestation or any of the matters referred to in the White Paper. The only matter dealt with in that portion of the Estimate is the expenditure on rural industries. Some improvement has occurred in the management of rural industries of late. I spoke here some time ago of a visit paid by the inspector of this Department to the Gaeltacht and of a reduction in salaries of the girls employed in the lace classes from about 14/- to 10/-. I believe that since that time inspectors have visited the district and the wages have been brought back to what they were formerly. Yet I cannot see how it is that the knitted garments made in these lace schools, as they are called where the wool and the labour costs about 2/6, are retailed here in Dublin at 6/9. I spoke about this matter here last year and the reply of the Minister was not at all satisfactory. The central depot has not yet of course been started. I hope that the central depot will soon be in existence and that when it is in existence something will be done to see that the wages paid for the work correspond in some way with the prices paid for the article in the retail shops in Dublin. I hope also that when the central depot starts the six or seven lace schools closed in South Connemara a few years ago will be re-opened.

I notice in the Estimates a sum of £200 for the development of the shellfish industry. I would like if the Minister in his reply would state exactly what work he intends to get done with this £200 in order to develop the shellfish industry. The building of a tank, the supervision of it, and, I suppose, the use of a lorry in connection with the shellfish tank, would cost about £1,500, and I do not know of any way in which the spending of £200 would be of any use.

Some time ago I asked a question in connection with the duty which falls on the Minister to build a pier along the coastline between Galway and Great Man's Bay, the previous pier having fallen down. That covers a distance of 40 miles, and a number of fishermen have been forced to give up fishing while many boatmen employed in transporting and selling turf have also become unemployed owing to the absence of these facilities. The Minister probably knows the district to which I refer. It is a very rough coastline, and with no protection over the whole area from South Connemara into Great Man's Bay; neither the fishermen nor those employed in carrying turf by boat can carry on their work except in very fine weather. An application was also made in connection with the provision of shelter on the north side of Connemara in the area where the disaster took place last year. That application is at present in the Minister's office, and I hope that in that case the Minister will also see that the necessary shelter is provided in the neighbourhood. The industry of turf-cutting is, of course, a minor industry, but it may be developed, and about 40 or 50 boats which lie idle for a good portion of the year could be engaged in transporting turf from this area around South Connemara to Galway and Clare, as they were formerly, when this pier was in existence. I do not know if the Minister ever went into the question of the development of the turf-cutting area, but there is a very extensive amount of bog and a considerable amount of money could be earned in transporting the turf from this bog into Clare and Galway. As a matter of fact, that is the only occupation and the only means of earning money which the people in a good many villages there have. About 40 or 50 boats were engaged in this business; they were not boats suitable for fishing.

The Minister should in connection with the recommendations for the reclamation of land, try to encourage a business of that sort, and he should see the necessity for the provision of piers for the development of the turf-cutting business. After all, there is nothing in the whole Estimate that is of any use to the people in the Gaeltacht. The rural industries are of use to a small portion of Connemara and of some use in Donegal and other counties, but the Estimate, although it is supposed to be an Estimate for the Gaeltacht, deals to a very small extent with the problems in our part of the country, which is probably more Gaelic than any other part of the country.

I would like some further information with regard to the Fishery Board which is to be established. I would not be at all surprised if it resulted in the same way as the Gaeltacht Commission. We had a debate on the Gaeltacht Commission Report and the White Paper, and the Minister said he would carry out the recommendations; but no money is asked for a single one of them this year.

I would like if the Minister would give some reason as to why the Government remitted rates on inland fisheries, or if he would state whether that is intended to be a subsidy for those fisheries. If that is so, why not give the subsidy from the Central Fund? This remission of rates on inland fisheries costs the Mayo County Council £1,600 a year. I think it is a most extravagant thing if the ratepayers of Mayo are to pay £1,600 a year as a subsidy to a few rich fishery conservators in the country when there are many other useful things to which the Mayo County Council could devote that £1,600. I would like the Minister to deal with that question.

I would like to mention a few matters in connection with this Vote. While I welcome the new departure of the Minister for Fisheries regarding the fishery industry in connection with the promotion of the Co-operative Association, appointing a board of directors, I think the whole thing falls very short of the development of the fishery industry for the reason that a definite sum has not been set aside. Why I say this is because I do not think there is very much hope of developing the fishery industry on any lines other than the lines of the fishery industry in England, Scotland, Germany and Norway. Any money expended to provide boats similar to the drifters and trawlers that are being used by those countries is to my mind not going to produce results that will benefit the fisheries of this country to any extent and the whole expenditure of money in connection with the fishery industry is a waste. That is my own impression and I feel that for the past number of years it has been carried out by giving small loans on boats and so on to people who are now in arrears. I feel that unless a definite sum is set aside nothing will be done. If the Minister for Fisheries asked for a loan amounting to five or six million pounds for a start, I do not think it would be money that would be wasted. When you take into consideration in connection with the Shannon Scheme that £5,000,000 was given with the consent of this House, if the Minister for Fisheries went out for a similar vote for a start it would be willingly voted to him. To my mind unless the Department of Fisheries go out to develop fisheries on those lines the money that has been expended has been a mere waste.

There is almost £26,000 for salaries and expenses. I am not criticising the amount that is paid in that connection, but I think if you were expending £5,000,000 it would not cost very much more than £26,000 or £27,000 to administer it. For that reason I believe that all the talk about the new Department in connection with the fishing industry in this country, unless the Minister goes in for developing it on the lines I have indicated, is a waste of time.

So far as the woollen industry is concerned, I welcome the new departure in that line. I do believe that anything getting away from the old primitive method of weaving cloth for which there was absolutely no sale and which has now gone out of the market, was a step in the right direction. Mention has been made of Glencar and Glencolmcille. There is one part of Donegal in which the homespun industry is principally carried on. It is in Gortahork and Falcarragh and on into Gweedore. It would be well if the Minister would establish the industry in that area.

There is an item of £150 in connection with the development of the kelp industry which I would like to say a few words on. I think the Minister stated that he had employed experts for the purpose of instructing the people around the seaboard how to burn kelp in the proper way so that they would get out of it the proper percentage of iodine. I would like to know where the Minister got the experts that he sent around. I have in mind those experts who visited the Fanad Peninsula, which is the only district in Donegal where any kelp is being manufactured for a number of years, and where the people there are experts in this industry. Experiments have been carried out there during the last three months. Kelp has been made from the rods, which is known there as Sleac Mara. Those rods are gathered in the winter time, dved and mixed with the weed which is gathered in the month of May. I would not be very optimistic as to the carrying out of these experiments in the manufacturing of kelp during the winter months, as the weed or rods are usually mixed with the weed gathered in May, which is of a much inferior quality. I understand they got one man in the Peninsula of Fanad to carry out the burning of the weed into kelp. It must have been under a great difficulty. I do not think that would be as fair a test as the mixture of the weed gathered in May.

It is not necessary that the rod should be burned during the winter months. What we really want to find out is the iodine content of the kelp from the winter rod as against, say, the May weed, the sea rod as against the frond.

The rod gathered in November would make a great difference so far as the percentage of iodine is concerned, and, besides, the weed procured in May has to be mixed with the rod in order that any results would be obtained. That is the considered opinion of people who are experts in the industry. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Those experts which the Minister referred to as instructors were actually getting instructions from these people whom they were supposed to instruct. While I welcome the advance in the kelp industry, I hold there is another line that the Department has not yet taken up. When those supposed experts were in Fanad——

They were not supposed to be experts at all. They were merely sent out to organise the getting of the stuff.

When they went there they might, through inquiries, have found out that a kelp factory had been in existence in Kindrum, Fanad, up to fifteen years ago. It was able to manufacture all the kelp that was gathered around the seaboard. That was practically all the kelp that was manufactured in Donegal. The total expense of establishing that kelp industry at the time was only about £500. The building is there, the boiler and some of the coolers are there, and five or six hundred pounds would put it in such a way that you could still manufacture the kelp and extract the iodine. I believe that is one end of it to which you should look and which would confer more benefit on the kelp industry than the lines you are adopting.

In connection with the preservation of sea fisheries, I mentioned here one time, by way of question to the Minister regarding the practice of foreign trawlers of sea-net fishing in Donegal, that around the coast of England and Scotland they have instituted bye-laws forbidding those people from indulging in that practice. I feel it is due to the Minister to institute a similar law here forbidding the same practice.

I just want to say that in this discussion last week it was assumed by speakers that one could alter the habits of fish by Acts of Parliament. I think that idea should be got rid of. We do know that from year to year and from season to season there are big changes. There are lean periods followed by fat periods. I stood up to-night to speak on a matter with which I am more concerned, namely, inland fisheries.

A very useful amount of work is put in on the rivers by the Civic Guards. They are doing magnificent work all through the country in putting down poaching, but I would like to see their work supplemented by better public spirit on the part of riparian owners. The Civic Guards by their activities are creating new values in those rivers and the least that should be expected from the riparian owners is that they should assist them. It is a well-known fact that anglers do very little damage, but we do know that netting and poisoning do considerable damage. I would suggest that it would very largely discourage a certain amount of the poaching that is going on in these rivers if the Minister could arrange that these riparian owners would not get protection unless they granted one free day's fishing a week to salmon anglers.

I want to ask the Minister with regard to a proposal that came from Cork recently. Of course it would be a very good proposal when it came from Cork. It was in connection with the policing of the seas. We must admit that the "Muirchú" cannot do all the work that is requisite in connection with poaching and the preservation of the fisheries within territorial limits. The proposals which were submitted to the Minister were that instead of having one ship of the type of the "Muirchú" operating around the Free State where fishing is carried on we should have eight smaller craft. The citizens who submitted these proposals were people who had been for many years connected with sea life and with sea fishermen. They suggested that eight small craft with motor engines should be employed and that in each of them there should be at least some representative of the law. The crew might consist of the captain or skipper who would have an ordinary coastal certificate, two others and a Civic Guard or some other person duly recognised by law who would be empowered to hold up poachers. These proposals were well thought out and planned. They came from amongst others a number of experienced yaughtsmen, people who have travelled a good deal of the world and who believe that the proposals would be very useful in preventing poaching and a lot of other trouble that has arisen as a result of incursions into our waters by foreigners. We are very much concerned in Cork with these proposals. I asked quite recently if any reply had been received from the Department and I was told that no reply had been received. There were very representative men at that meeting to discuss the best ways and means of policing our territorial waters, as they are called. They submitted these proposals in good faith. We believe and can easily prove that the upkeep of these small boats will not cost a penny more than the "Muirchú." There is a sum of £8,000 on the Estimate for coastal protection. The expenses of these boats would not be greater than £8,000 and the policing or bailiffing of the waters would be eight times as good as at present. I think it is a suggestion that should receive the serious consideration of the Minister and I raise the matter to give him an opportunity of replying.

I think I promised Deputy Walsh that I would answer him first. He raised the question of rates on valued fisheries, and urged that the charge on local rates should come out of the Central Fund. The answer to that is that under the provisions of the 1925 Act the rates on valued fisheries go to the Boards of Conservators instead of to the local councils as they used to go in the past, and that they are to be used for fishery protection. The Fishery Act of 1925 also provides that if there is too much burden placed on any given local body by such transfer of the rates on valued fisheries to the Board of Conservators a certain refund will be made by my Department. On page 222, inland fisheries, there is a figure of £1,500, payments to local authorities under Section 13 of the Fishery Act of 1925. That is a provision to meet any cases of hardship on local authorities. The thing is provided for by statute, and I have no power to change it except by statute.

In connection with the Vote, I should say that Deputy Derrig, in moving his amendment, made a speech which I think at least showed that it was not done for the sake of making a speech, but that very considerable thought had been given to the matter and to the difficulties facing the Department in dealing with this particular subject. He raised very many matters in the course of his speech that I hope to deal with in my reply. One of the first things he raised was the steam drifting fleet operating off our coast. Out of the 300 herring steam drifters I think he said there were two of Irish register. I think that is about right. I presume the Deputy knows that that particular class of boat only engages in seasonal fishing. It operates for a very short time of the year, and it must follow the shoals wherever they go. The shoals are in the West of Ireland now, in the North of Ireland next, now off the west coast of Scotland, then off the east coast of England. They must move about in accordance with the movements of the shoals. Otherwise they are an unpaying proposition. That requires, on the part of the men engaged in that particular end of sea fishing, a willingness to remain away from home for long periods of the year. The men engaged in that type of fishing cannot be at home for more than a couple of months. They cannot fish out of their own ports for more than six or eight weeks of the year, and must be prepared to remain away for the remainder of the year. Secondly, they must be prepared to take the gamble that this involves and be satisfied with the result of their operations. If the results are good they will have a good time; if they are bad they will come home with very small purses. Our experience is that we do not find a terrible lot of willingness on the part of our fishermen to engage in that type of fishing, from one reason or the other. Either they are not prepared to stay away from home for very long periods or they are not prepared to take the big gamble that is involved.

It is interesting to know what the position is with regard to the Scottish drifters that are operating here. The fact is that for several seasons past they are barely paying their expenses.

The "Fishing News" of July 20th last states in reference to this matter:—

Conditions have improved during the past two years, but even a good season, as success is now measured, affords little more than a living wage to those participating in it, and does not permit of the setting aside of reserves sufficient for the replacement of boats unfit for service. Extension of the existing markets and recovery of lost markets must be a slow process and even if substantial success is achieved in this direction the necessity for a cheaper substitute for the steam drifter will apparently still remain.

In other words, they are beginning to find, in fact they have found for some years past, that the boat is too expensive in its initial cost and in its running. I have to add to that the Fishery Report for Scotland for 1926, from which I shall read a short paragraph in connection with the same matter:

The net result of the year's operations was to throw the herring fishing communities of the Moray Firth and East Coast back to the position in which they found themselves in the dark days of 1923. At the close of the year their financial resources were again practically exhausted, and they were once more burdened with a load of debt from which only a series of successful seasons will extricate them. The entire community is at the moment living in an elaborate cycle of credit, in which the firms which undertake the reconditioning of the drifters, the manufacturing firms who supply gear, and the wholesalers who supply the local retailers with food and other necessities of life, are alike involved.

In these circumstances it is not surprising that much anxiety provails as to the future of the steam drifter fleet, and must continue to prevail so long as earnings remain at or below the pre-war level, while repairs, renewals and running expenses have to be paid for at postwar rates. These conditions have rendered it impossible to maintain the vessels at a proper standard of efficiency, and with progressive deterioration the cost of repairs and maintenance increases yearly. Much consideration has therefore been given to the possibility of substituting for the steamer a smaller vessel run by some form of oil-engine, with its advantages of comparatively low initial cost and running expenses and adaptability for almost any form of fishing in moderate weather. It cannot be said that there has been any pronounced movement in this direction as yet, but it is significant that what little new construction has taken place has been practically confined to vessels of this type.

The same thing is repeated in the Fishery Report for 1927. It shows that in fact that particular type of boat, operating on capital provided by private companies, has not been a success. Therefore, it would be an extremely foolish thing for us here to go in for a boat which is proving uneconomic at the moment. It would be much better for us to wait and see whether a new type of boat will be evolved which will deal with the herring shoals more economically.

I did not suggest that we should go into the drifter business. But, in any case, in spite of the difficulties, the Scottish drifter industry is apparently carrying on, whereas there is nothing carrying on here.

It is obvious how it is carrying on there. These companies are very well financed and they can afford to stand a few bad seasons, and unless we are prepared in going into that to face that loss for a number of years we might as well not start at all. The companies who finance the operations here of the Scottish steam drifters are able to weather a few bad seasons and hope for the best. In future, presumably, when they find a more suitable type of boat, they will get rid of the drifters and go in for a new type of boat.

There is a very simple answer to the Minister and it is this: what practical proof has he that something cannot be done even in the way of drifters in this country? Admitting that all these difficulties are there, what practical experiment has the Minister to show that the thing was a failure?

Even if there were no experiments here, the very experience that these people have had in their fishing operations is sufficient justification for us to come to the conclusion that they are not a success. Herring is caught here by smaller boats, and even though the boats that mainly take part in the fishing and land the catches here are foreign boats, that is of very considerable advantage to the particular places where the fish are landed. Buncrana would be hit very badly if the Scottish drifters boycotted that place and landed the fish in Scotland.

Might I point out to the Minister that that is admitted— that no person has denied that?

I have not said that anybody has denied it. The Deputy referred to a statement made some years ago by the Minister for Finance to the effect that the Government were prepared to put up money for any scheme that they thought feasible for fishery development. The position is so, and, as far as I am concerned, I do not think I have ever denied that the position is so. But, in my particular position, with the sense of responsibility I have, both as a Deputy responsible to a constituency, and as a Minister responsible to this House and the general taxpayer, I refuse to rush in and recommend the expenditure of money until I see some likelihood of a permanent result from that expenditure. Money will be provided, for instance, for the Association which is being set up. It is not a matter to be discussed here, as it will be provided in the money resolution to the Bill. Money is only provided for a couple of months. Money for the Association and the transfer of certain properties to the Association will be provided for in the Bill. It is not a question of the Government not being prepared to spend money. The Government are prepared to spend money, where they foresee some results from it. They are not prepared to fling out money in loans or anything else, where, for instance in the case of loans, there is no intention of repaying them. We made a rule in the Department that no loan would be given to anybody unless the person provided two solvent securities. That was questioned by Deputy Mullins and others who said it was terribly hard. If a man cannot, in his own locality, get two persons to say that he is an honest man, two persons who will stand for him, why should he expect the State to do it? Why should the general taxpayer do something that his neighbours do not think should be done for him? It is mulcting the general taxpayer to subsidise a person who has no intention of repaying any money he could get. That would be the effect of it. I must say that during the good years before the war, loans were normally repaid fairly well. During the war years they were repaid very well. But, when the slump came, the repayments fell off and, after a while, the habit developed of not paying at all. There was a kind of general feeling that you need pay nobody. Shopkeepers had the same complaint. Shop debts would not be paid. Land annuities would not be paid and fishery loans were the worst of all perhaps. When a man got a fishery loan, he looked upon it as a grant. I, in my position, cannot certainly stand for that. When we give a loan and we say it is a loan, we mean a loan. If we are going to give a grant, let us call it a grant.

Is that statement of the Minister not a libel on the fishermen?

The Deputy can make what he likes of it. I myself have very considerable hopes, and I must say that I was very glad to hear the friendly expressions towards the new Association. I said I have considerable hopes of it. I do not expect miracles from it. It will have certain advantages that a Department never could have in dealing with matters of this kind. A government department hemmed round by certain matters in the Constitution, for instance, as far as the finances of the State are concerned, cannot deal with business in the same way as an association can. This Association will have a free hand in dealing with matters in a business way, freely to spend money without consulting anybody else except their own wisdom. They will be supplied with money by grants-in-aid for which they will answer, through me, to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the Minister for Finance, but they will not have to give a detailed account of every item of expenditure or to ask for financial sanction for every detail of expenditure. They will have very great advantages, as against a department, in dealing with business matters.

They will be dealing entirely with inshore fisheries for the present. Two Deputies opposite misunderstood their functions. I think Deputy S. Jordan expected that they would go in for steam trawling, and Deputy F. Crowley thought they would be dealing with scientific investigation with regard to inland fisheries. Neither of these is their function. Their function is to deal with inshore fishery and inland markets, and perhaps from that other necessary functions in the development of inshore fishery, but inshore fishery is essentially their first function, and we can see afterwards what can be built upon that.

Deputy Derrig inquired in regard to the development of industries in the Gaeltacht. He wished to know what materials were included in the £12,000 for the purchase of raw material. That sum will cover the cost of the yarn for weaving; in some cases I believe the cost of wool, the dyeing, and the carding of wool preparatory to spinning, the cost of yarn for hand and machine knitting, the cost of linen and materials for embroidery and lace-making, and cost of materials for some new industries in contemplation. The policy the Department has been following is to try and improve and consolidate and extend the industries we have at the moment. There are certain rural industries existing, as everyone knows, in the Gaeltacht. We believe they are capable of considerable extension and improvement. We believe we are now progressing in the right way to bring about both that extension and improvement.

A Deputy opposite raised the question of the fishery school, raised also, I think, by Deputy Jordan. The proposals on that subject have now actually been settled, but they will not, in fact, appear in my own Vote, but when provision is made for them in the Vote of the Minister for Education. A Bill called the Vocational Education Bill is ready for introduction and that Bill will enable the fishery schools the Deputy is anxious about to be set up. One will be set up in Galway, one in Arklow, and one in Killybegs. The Deputy also referred to the minor marine works. Many Deputies were anxious to know why those did not appear in the Vote for my Department or why they were omitted this year. They were not in my Vote last year. They appeared in the Vote for the Board of Works and about £4,000 was provided for minor marine works. These works are constantly being carried on. There is a limited sum available. The Board of Works operates some of these, and where fishery or Gaeltacht interests are involved, like those mentioned by Deputy Tubridy, for instance, they will operate on our advice. Our recommendation would have to go to the Board of Works Department before they would deal with a case of that kind. These works are constantly going on. There is such a wide demand that in fact the Board of Works, after certain consultations with me, are considering the advisability of a kind of general investigation. They consider each of these demands throughout the country as a whole, but investigate the places where they should be put. They have deferred any very definite action in this matter until we get the report from the Port and Harbours Tribunal, which is due in March.

With regard to the review of the loans. I pointed out last July, in the Estimates debate, that a Departmental Committee was being set up to consider that, and already in answer to some Deputy I stated that there were a thousand cases referred to the Committee. Seven hundred of these have been examined, five hundred are ready to be reported upon, and they hope to be able to supply myself and the Minister for Finance with their report in ten weeks—that is, ten weeks from last Thursday, so that it is only now nine weeks. I cannot foretell what the report of that Inter-departmental Committee it is to report to will be, but whatever report they make after examination of each individual case will be adopted both by the Minister for Finance and myself.

In reference to the inland fisheries one of the principal points raised by Deputies Aiken, Goulding and Derrig was the question of opening the fishing season earlier. The time of the opening of the rivers is governed by bye-laws. I pointed out that it would be impossible to make a general bye-law governing the country as a whole or rather to bring in a statute fixing a general date for the opening of the rivers. In fact scientists tell us, at any rate, that in certain rivers fish do run earlier than in other rivers, and while that is so —that fish run earlier in some rivers than in others—you must have different dates for the opening of these rivers. Now for nearly every river in the country naturally there is a desire by fishermen, especially by the net fishermen, that the river should open earlier. Fish are much dearer and they fetch much better prices in the earlier part of the season. In this country we have two or three rivers that open on the 1st January. There is one in Kerry, and I think there are two in Sligo, but these three rivers are the only rivers in Great Britain or Ireland that open on the 1st January, and they do so by bye-law because it was certified scientifically that the fish run earlier there. It is quite a monopoly for the persons who have this fish. It gives a fortnight's monopoly of the supply of fish in the London markets to the persons who owned these rights or certain net men who are able to fish there. It is, however, established from the scientific end that that is the time they come up; but in other rivers they do not.

On the general question of the opening of rivers, what I said to Deputy Little was that where there was anything in the nature of a general demand by way of petition or otherwise from the fishermen, from the anglers or the net men, for an inquiry I can always grant an inquiry. I do not want frivolous inquiries. It would be ridiculous to hold an inquiry where already an inquiry had been held within the last couple of years. There can possibly be no such change in the run of the fish in a few years as would warrant any inquiry. We would give an inquiry if we were convinced that there was some salient evidence to be brought forward that was not brought a year or two previously.

I now pass on to deal with the point raised by Deputy Hogan of Clare. The Deputy raised the point that in connection with Killaloe an inspector of the Department went down there and that he was a member of an Association which was interested in the elimination of crossline fishing. An inquiry was made into that question. I accept that with certain qualifications. The particular inspector was rather amazed himself to discover that he was a member of this Association. He had never paid any contribution into it nor was he consulted as to whether or not he would become a member of the Association. His name appeared in the list of members. He was not the chief inspector. He was there with the inspector holding the inquiry. If I were satisfied that there is any doubt in the minds of the people of the area that they did not get fair play in the matter because of that fact, which I know was entirely accidental—if there is any fear that they did not get a fair hunt —I can have another inquiry ordered.

I was asked by Deputy Derrig specially to mention the Blackwater Inquiry. I looked up the matter, and the report made to me in the case was that any earlier opening of the Blackwater would affect very prejudicially the number of salmon going up to the spawning beds and thereby endanger the general stocking of the river. I think the desire of the people who asked for the inquiry was that the river should be opened on the 15th January. At present the fishing there opens on the 1st February.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

The inspector having fully heard the evidence, and having satisfied himself on the merits of the case, reported to me that he was satisfied that any earlier opening of the river would prejudicially affect the supply of the stock in the river. Therefore, he recommended to me that the date should not be changed, and I kept to that.

That is not the belief in the district at all.

At any rate, it was a judicial decision come to by the chief inspector after hearing evidence on both sides.

Surely the Minister could reconcile the differences between the 1st February and the 15th January——

I am no fishery biologist. I do not claim to be any way scientific in that way at all. It is quite possible that rivers which are quite near each other may differ in that respect—you may have fish running up earlier in one river and later in the other. I believe it is some question of the fish food in the river. A certain kind of food in certain rivers produces a type of fish which come up earlier. It is found even in rivers that are close together that fish run up earlier in one than in the other.

We are agreed on that.

I understand the objection in the Blackwater case was that the fish going back after spawning were caught.

My advice was that it would affect particularly the fish reaching the spawning beds and not the smelts going back to the sea.

Would I be in order in asking the Minister if we are to take it then that several inquiries have been held similar to the Blackwater one with the same result, that his scientists say that the same state of affairs now exists there from that point of view as existed when those bye-laws were originally made and there is no change in the habits of the fish as far as they are concerned?

In these inquiries it is more local evidence of fishermen than scientific evidence that comes to me. Evidence is given by anglers and net men, people from the boards of conservators, and so on, and usually there are solicitors and counsel engaged. The chief inspector who usually holds those inquiries acts more or less in a judicial capacity. His function is to make a report on the evidence to me. The bye-laws have to be made by the Minister for Fisheries. The chief inspector is acting in a judicial capacity. He hears the evidence on both sides. It is mostly ordinary evidence of facts as to whether people have seen fish running up earlier than formerly. In many cases bye-laws have been made changing the seasons. In many other cases bye-laws have not been made. A number of inquiries resulted in no change being made.

May I point out to the Minister that unfortunately the dice are always loaded against the net men? The rod men are accustomed to attending inquiries, and they know how to give their evidence better, with the result that the dice are always loaded in their favour.

The Deputy must not put me in the position of favouring the net men against the rod men, or vice versa. It is a fact that the net men and the rod men seem in most cases to consider that their interests are diametrically opposed when, in fact, they are identical. It should be to their interest that a sufficient number of fish come up to spawn, because this will result in more ova and a betterment of the fishing in the river. It would appear, for some reason or other, that the net men look at the rod men as their enemies and the rod men look at the net men as their enemies. If they could be brought to realise that their interests are identical, one would have a better feeling and a better modus operandi.

A great deal was said about the infringement of our territorial waters. Before I go any further in that matter I would like to refer to the Saltee Islands case which occurred last week. On being asked a question then, my answer was that the case was appealed, though I think that was not actually reported.

It was reported.

I think I said at the time that I was appealing the case. That is my recollection. In fact we found afterwards that we were late. When we had advice on the matter it was too late for the appeal. The appeal in the case is by way of a case stated in the High Court. That is the method of appealing in a case of that kind from the District Court, and a case must be stated within seven days. Fortunately or unfortunately another case similar to that has now been brought in and while we were late for the appeal in the last case we will, if we so desire, have an opportunity in this case of doing so if the decision is similar to that given last week. Steps are being taken to present the case more fully before the District Justice; counsel will be engaged. We hope to get a different decision from that given last week; if we get a similar decision we will ask to have a case stated to the High Court by way of appeal.

The general question was raised by very many Deputies. Deputy Mullins, wherever he got his information, was cognisant of certain international negotiations going on at the Hague. That is so. He was very desirous that our Department would keep in touch with the Department of External Affairs in connection with the matters being discussed at the Hague. In fact one of the delegation at the Hague is the chief inspector of fisheries. Mr. Green is one of the Free State delegation there. I cannot foretell what their report will be, but we hope to have matters made somewhat clear as a result of their negotiations.

Deputy Daly, Deputy Goulding, Deputy Kent and other Deputies referred to the transfer of certain fishing rights along the Blackwater to tenant purchasers. The Land Act of 1923 makes certain provisions, but I understand that the Land Act of 1929 makes that transfer possible, if desirable, after consultation with the Minister for Lands and Fisheries. This is a matter where there is room for divided opinions, in the sense that if you have a good river and you have certain persons who bought under the Land Act of 1903, they got the fishing rights as riparian owners, or at any rate there was no obligation about the matter. In some cases the rights were reserved to the landlord and in other cases they went to the riparian owners The Land Act of 1923 took away these and other things compulsorily. The position was this, that A on one bank of the river would possess fishing rights, B on the opposite bank would not have them, C would have them, D on the opposite side of the river would not have them, and E would not have them. From the point of view of ordinary common sense there is no use in trying to retain the rights of persons who have not got them.

I question whether it is entirely desirable from the point of view of inland fisheries as a whole to hand over fishing rights to riparian owners. I have a kind of idea that unless among the riparian owners there is some sort of co-operation in regard to the river as a whole you will have the fellow close to the mouth of the river fishing whatever pool is there until he will not leave a fish for the fellow above him and you will have the upper end of the river fished until it is useless either for the people there or for anybody else. My outlook is, that except where you could get co-operation amongst the various owners to pool the stream between them, either to set it then at advantage to themselves or utilise it for the extension of tourist traffic, there would not be any good results. I am sure local hotels in any district which cater for tourists would be very glad to meet riparian owners and to compensate them reasonably for their particular rights if there was a spirit among the riparian owners that they would not poach the river after they had sold their portions of it. That is speaking rather generally. Speaking of the river where the land on each side was not purchased before the 1923 Act, my particular line—and this is a purely personal opinion; I have not fully thought the matter out and I have not had full consultation in the matter—would be that it would be much better to have the fishing rights vested in the State and utilise them for the betterment of fishing in the particular river basin and give some advantage by way of a subsidy to the riparian owners, a remission of land annuities or something of that kind. I think in many cases the suggestion of nationalisation frightens most people, but this is a case in which there are very many arguments in favour of nationalisation.

Is the Minister contemplating a move in that direction?

Demi-semi-nationalisation.

I thought I had made myself fairly clear. Where there are riparian owners, A. with fishing rights, B. without them, C. with them, and D. not with them, you might as well hand them over to the persons who have not got them at the moment because you have got the others anyway, and you might then try to get them to form some co-operative arrangement amongst themselves. In a case where we would have, under recent Acts, all the river, where there is no riparian ownership, my personal opinion is that we should retain it.

What about the penal clause in the 1929 Land Act?

What would be the position in the case of a several fishery? In cases where there are several fisheries or where there are a few cases of tenants not having these rights, are the vast majority of the tenants, then, going to lose the benefit according to that principle that the Minister has laid down?

In the case where the State would retain the rights vested in itself certain compensation would be paid to the riparian owners in lieu of their rights—I do not know if it could be legally done by way of a remission of land annuities or some quid pro quo.

What about the several fisheries?

That is an entirely different matter, as the Deputy himself knows. A several fishery is a special property as distinct from land and it does not go with the land under any Land Act. It is a property in itself. If you are to deal with the acquisition of several fisheries you must deal with them by buying them in the same way as you bought land or as you might buy a house. This is special property belonging to certain persons until the law says otherwise, and I do not suppose the Deputy would like to create any feeling of insecurity by way of interference with the rights of property. While these rights remain they must be dealt with in a legal manner. It is a question whether these several fisheries should not be the property of the State and not of individuals.

It is no harm to point out——

I think the Minister should be allowed to continue his speech.

I think Deputy Goulding has the Duke of Devonshire on his brain.

These fisheries were acquired in a very illegal manner.

I must ask the Deputy to allow the Minister to make his speech without further interruption.

I hope that I will not be expected to go into the history of the acquisition of every kind of fishery in the country. First, I do not know them, and, secondly, it is sure to be a very long history.

And in any case it would be irrelevant.

Deputy Goulding, I think, mentioned a couple of points about the destruction by seals, and also about a salmon disease which occurred a few years ago. The Deputy is probably aware that there is an order of the Department preventing the importation of ova and fry of salmon or trout. That is because of the existence of disease largely in Great Britain and the Continent. It occurred here in a few of our rivers, but fortunately we practically escaped from it, in comparison with the people across Channel or on the Continent. As regards seals, the best places, in our experience, to kill them is at their breeding grounds, which are generally inaccessible. A certain amount of good work is, however, being done on the grounds where they are making their depredations. I assure the House that when I came into the Department some six or seven years ago the opinion there was entirely against the usefulness of guns in dealing with the seal problem. The officials there said that guns were utterly useless, and I was informed that a Bisley marksman was once employed by the old Fisheries Branch to go to the mouth of the Suir to shoot seals. When he came back after a couple of months, during which he spent a good deal of ammunition, he admitted that he was sure only of hitting one seal.

Did he ever try Carnsore Point? I saw 34 there.

That, at all events, had been the experience of the Department in regard to the use of guns for the destruction of seals. That view has, however, been disproved in many places, including Cremane in Kerry and the mouth of the Suir. As I say, good work has been done by persons using rifles to destroy seals. The boards of conservators are encouraged to give certain grants for the destruction of seals and cormorants. I think Deputy Broderick raised the question of licences for long-lines. That matter is fixed by statute, and though I am, perhaps, responsible in the sense that I introduced the Bill which fixed it, the Act is there, and until a new one is passed I have no power either to remit or reduce them. The same Deputy complained about the bye-law restricting the size of eels which may be lawfully captured. That limitation is put on to prevent the capture of immature fish which have no commercial value. The practice of killing these small fish was doing a great deal of damage to the stock of eels on places like the Shannon.

Deputy Everett referred to the silting at the bar at Arklow, but if there is any place in which more money is given than another by the Department for dredging it is Arklow. The Public Works dredger for a great part of the year is clearing the Arklow bar. The last time the bar silted was shortly before it was dredged. Deputies Kilroy and Walsh raised the question about the remission of rates on inland fisheries, but I have already answered that point. Complaint has been made that sufficient has not been done for the revival of the homespun industry in Donegal. It is not denied that something has been done to promote the weaving of tweeds from mill-spun yarns. I gather from some remarks that have been passed that there is rather anxiety about our doing too much in that direction and not enough in the direction of homespuns. Deputies may be rather mixed up in all the words used in this connection. To my mind, "homespun" means material which is made from yarn spun in the cottages. That is the genuine homespun, and nothing else has a right to be called homespun. The other may be home-woven or hand-woven, but if it is woven from mill-spun yarn it has no right to be called homespun.

Yarn spun and woven in the cottages is referred to as hand-spun.

I say that the word "homespun" is very loosely used. To me it means, and its original meaning was, "spun in the cottages by hand." There is no genuine homespun except cloth made from yarn spun in the cottages by hand. I have said that a very considerable amount has been done for the homespun as well as for the weaving of cloth from mill-spun yarn. A Deputy referred to test pieces being sent out and rejected. There was no such thing as a test piece. The stuff that was sent out was the result of an effort on the part of the Department to have patterns of homespun and pieces of tweed from homespun yarns which we might be able to show to the trade as quickly as possible. It was a question of getting in yarn from which we could get homespun stuff in a given time. Most of the Deputies from Donegal, Connemara, and Kerry will know that the homespun business is a very slow process. Spinning is very slow apart from hand-weaving. It requires ten spinners to keep one weaver going, a weaver who works a handloom. If you are going to wait for any big development through home-spinning alone you will wait a long time before you achieve it. You must keep the two side by side and you must look to the fact that you have weavers available, fairly good weavers, who are anxious to get work if they have the yarn. These could not be employed, however, if we were to depend on homespun yarn alone. In Donegal and other places we bought a considerable amount of native wool and we got it spun in the Convoy Mills. We brought it back to Ardara and a great deal of it was woven by weavers there. The grievance is that we did not start a carding and dyeing plant in Ardara, that we did not fall for a certain particularly noisy movement. We refused to be rushed.

I refuse to believe that there is any real reason for establishing a carding or a dyeing plant at the moment until there is further development. While we have the Convoy mills there, we can get the yarn to be spun. At the same time, I am coming to the belief that if there is to be a carding and dyeing plant established, it will not be in Ardara. It will be in Kilcar, because we are getting far better results since we started operations in Kilcar than we got in Ardara. I went to considerable trouble in getting spinners. I circularised the parish priests—this is in answer to a question put by a number of Deputies—and got about 65 spinners. Work was given to them, but there were only ten or fifteen who were competent to turn out spun yarn which was at all satisfactory. The others were beginners but my Department did not, as the Deputy suggested, condemn them. In fact we tried to train them. The difficulty about home-spinning, of course, is the unequal quality of the yarn returned. The weaver who has an uneven yarn will turn out a cloth which will not pass the test of the inspector. It could not, therefore, possibly get the trade mark or the guarantee mark.

Deputy Hogan raised the question of the Central Depôt, and he said it might as well be in Connemara as in Beggar's Bush. In fact, if we could get a suitable place in Connemara, it is there it should be. The Central Depôt has an entirely different meaning in our minds to that which it apparently has in Deputy Hogan's mind. It is not a showroom, and is not intended to be a showroom. It is the wholesale centre where the public will not even be admitted. It will be the wholesale depôt which will supply the retail trade, from which travellers will go out canvassing the retail trade and into which orders will come. The Deputy said that there were plenty of showrooms to be had between Stephen's Green and Parnell Square where the public could see and examine these products. There are many shops where the products of the Gaeltacht can be seen between Stephen's Green and Parnell Square. In a very short time we are hoping it will only be necessary to go into any shop in that area and ask for the products of the Gaeltacht and they will be shown to any person who wishes to see them. I had an experience of that myself recently, although the depôt has not yet been established. I happened to go into Clerys to buy the suit which I am now wearing. I certainly was not known there, but I saw certain tweed on the counter, and I thought it might be Kerry homespun. I asked them where they got it, and they said it was Department of Fisheries cloth. I admit that I did not know my own product, but they had it in Clerys. I suggest to the Deputy that if he wishes to buy the product of our weavers from Ardara or some other place he will get it in Clerys.

They did not; they had to ask me for my name. Deputy Law asked for some information, and some other Deputies also inquired about the kelp industry, and complained of the small amount provided for its development. I mentioned in opening that this amount is purely for research work. The proposal at the moment is that each lot will be delivered to the Department for storage, and while it is there an analysis will be made. That analysis will be made under, the direction of the State chemist. It will be made on the spot, and it will be fairly approximate. At any rate the result of the test will be immediately communicated to the owner of the kelp. He will have that safeguard, and he will have, at any rate, an approximate estimate of the amount of iodine content that is in the kelp, and he will know what price he will get.

Do I understand that this is kelp which will be purchased by the Fisheries Department, or will be merely dealt with by them on analysis for sale to other people?

Very probably we will be acting as agents for the burners. Deputy Anthony raised the question as to certain proposals sent up from Cork in regard to the protection of the coast, and he complained that no answer had been sent to the Cork Industrial Development Association in connection with that. I can assure him that the gentleman who put the proposal before the Association saw me and had a very long consultation with me in my office. He went away, informing me he would make certain further inquiries, because our information was to the effect that the type of boat suggested would be utterly unsuitable. We would be prepared to listen to any expert advice as to whether that was so. He was to get me a report from certain experts in that type of work, and I have not yet got that from him. I should say, in conclusion, that I am grateful for the remarks made about the Association, and the rather kindly expression which came from Deputy Derrig, Deputy Redmond, and from all sides of the House in connection with it. I will convey these wishes to the Directors when they meet to-morrow morning for their first meeting.

The Minister stated that he would try to answer my questions in regard to the hand-spun industry in Ardara at the conclusion of his speech. In the first place I would like to ask why his Department did not reply to the points raised by the Ardara homespun workers in the letter they wrote to him pointing out certain obstacles the Department put up. In the second place I would like to ask the Minister is he aware that from the 1st October, 1928, to 1st October, 1929, only 200 lbs. of wool came to the market in Ardara, and even though the spinners and weavers were applying for wool they could not get it. Is he aware that when I raised the question in October last year he said only six weavers could be found in the neighbourhood of Ardara?

I said six spinners, and I said that after I had searched the highways and by-ways, only eleven to fifteen were found to be proficient.

Is the Minister aware that a week or a fortnight after I raised that matter in the House an inspector went to Ardara and gave 4,200 lbs. of wool out to 130 spinners and weavers? Is the Minister further aware that on the 5th March, 1928, the names and addresses of 243 spinners and weavers were supplied to the Department of Industry and Commerce, which Department, I understand, transmitted those names to his Department?

There are a dozen questions involved in that. One reason why we did not reply to such and such persons probably was that we did not think it was worth while.

Does the Minister mean by his silence that what we say is correct?

I would like to ask what is the £1,000 for State fishery rights exactly? What does that cover? And, secondly, a question I forgot to ask in my opening statement — how will the staff of this Central Depôt be appointed; will they be appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners or through advertisements in the Press, or in what way? I take it that they have been appointed already.

As far as the staff of the Central Depôt is concerned, I think it will be appointed, if not entirely, almost entirely by the Civil Service Commissioners. As far as the State fishery rights are concerned—I should have answered that—it refers to the factory on the Owen Nares river which was handed over by the Congested Districts Board, and two fishery lodges in Co. Mayo.

The Minister stated to me when I interrupted him in the course of his remarks, that he was prepared to answer the questions I asked when he was finished. Is he now prepared to answer them?

If you ask one at a time—yes.

In the first place I am asking why the Minister's Department did not reply to the points raised by the Ardara home spun workers in regard to difficulties which his Department was putting in the way of the development of their industry.

I should probably say because the Department did not think the Committee worth while answering.

Is the Minister aware that in October, 1928 actually 200 lbs. of wool came to Ardara and secondly that the spinners or weavers could not get wool?

I am not aware. I am not an encyclopædia.

Is the Minister further aware that 4,200 lbs. of wool came to Ardara in 1929 and that although the Minister said in 1929 that he could not find six spinners or weavers, a week or a fortnight after an inspector gave wool to 130 weavers to spin?

The Deputy can ask questions but he cannot make a speech.

The Minister will answer my question because it is easy. I do not base my case for a second inquiry on Killaloe alone, on the fact that an officer of his Department was alleged to belong to a certain association. The claim of that association was that the bed of the river did belong to the owners on both sides. As far as I can gather and I have information of a rather good nature on both sides of the river there is no attempt to sustain that claim. Can I now assume that the Minister will give me a second inquiry on that matter as to the rights or wrongs of abolishing long line fishing in Lough Derg?

Yes, if there is a demand for it. With regard to the last question of Deputy Cassidy I did not get all those figures.

Is the Minister aware that on the 5th March, 1928 the names and addresses of 243 spinners and weavers in the Ardara district were handed into the Department of Industry and Commerce, which Department transmitted them to the Minister's Department?

I am not.

Motion—That the Estimate be referred back—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 61.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Leary, William.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Aird, William P.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEóin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Motion declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share