The statement of the Minister in introducing this Bill gave us very little to go upon. In the first place, I think the House is entitled to a definite statement from the Government as to their general attitude towards the fishing industry. We are not so much concerned with the actual methods, perhaps, if we can find out what exactly is the Government's attitude. Are they really in earnest in trying to reorganise this industry or are they not? I must say I am astonished that the Minister has not given any time to the consideration of the general position of the fishing industry. It is an important industry. In some counties, such as Donegal, it is suggested that the herring industry would be worth a quarter of a million pounds in a normal year. Even during the past few years, when the fishing industry has been in a particularly difficult position, the annual take has run into some hundreds of thousands of pounds. If you add to that the amount spent on curing and transport of the fish there is no doubt that, even in present circumstances, the industry is worth at least half a million pounds, or perhaps more, to the country. Therefore, that point ought to have been dealt with by the Minister.
The Minister has stated that he is handing over certain assets to this Association. I am very sorry Deputy McDonagh is not present to hear what we have to say on this matter. What are the assets of the Fishery Department at present? Then the Minister has spoken of handing over these old debts. It is time to get rid of the question of debts. The position of this Association, if it does start, will be difficult enough without being complicated by taking over old debts and old accounts from the Department. Let the Department get rid of these accounts themselves and not burden the new Association and the directors with endeavouring to straighten them out. They are hanging fire long enough. Now that the Minister has definitely promised to introduce a Bill, I think he might very well keep that question of debts within his own Department.
There is also the matter of assets. What are the assets of this Department? We are told that there are a considerable number of boats throughout the country belonging to the Department, but these boats in some cases are in a very bad condition. Even if they are not, it is very doubtful whether they are worth the price that the mandarins of the Minister would be likely to place upon them because, unfortunately, these gentlemen must have their say in all these matters. One of the things that disappoints me in connection with this Bill is the feeling that the Department of Finance has its finger in every clause of these rules. On 15th March, 1930, the Secretary of the Department wrote to me and stated that the State in connection with this new organisation would provide the initial funds for the supply of boats; would make an annual grant towards the administration charges, and would give financial assistance in other approved proposals. It is very significant that the Minister has not said one word about the finance of this scheme. That is what we are interested in. How exactly is this scheme going to work? So far as the Association raising any capital is concerned, I think we may dismiss that. The only powers they have to raise money are on the strength of mortgages on their property.
The Minister has not stated what is the value of their property, but whatever value it may be I think we can take it that it is not sufficient for the new Association to raise a considerable amount of money upon—say, £100,000 or £50,000—to go on with this work. How are they going to raise capital? It seems to me that there is no way of raising capital. The membership of the Association in itself will not bring in any capital. It is going to be one of those democratic Associations that the Plunkett House tradition unfortunately has conferred upon this country—an Association where you have a lot of members who have no responsibility and who simply come together and talk academically and generally get in the way of the few people in the Association who want to do something. Instead of not complicating the position of the directors who may want to do something, we are simply overloading this with red tape and in an essential matter like finance we have no information as to what the Government are going to do. At any rate, there are no powers in the rules to enable them to raise money to any substantial amount, such as the Electricity Supply Board or the Agricultural Credit Corporation has done. I am afraid that the basis of this scheme, as far as commercial efficiency and putting the fishing industry on its feet are concerned, leaves a lot to be desired. What was the objection to setting up a commercial board such as was done in these two cases, if not actually getting the directors to pledge themselves to some extent financially and make them in that way responsible? Unfortunately, however good a director may be or however honourable officials may be, they have a habit of dealing quite differently with the taxpayer's money from the way they would deal with their own. If, however, it is impossible to devise a scheme by which directors or business men would be got who would pledge themselves financially and invest capital in this business, while at the same time getting an amount of State control and supervision—I think that should have been possible—then a commercial board should have been established, and I suggest that power should have been given to enable the board to raise money by State guarantee.
Either the State has taken up the matter in earnest or it has not. If it is not taking it up in earnest let us be finished with it and not give the country the impression that a really serious effort is being made to develop the industry when there is no word from start to finish as to how the money is to be raised for that purpose. The Minister has very great powers in connection with this matter. Another defect in the co-operative system of organisation is that, as well as being thoroughly inefficient in essence it gives control to a number of members who will have no qualification or interest in the fishing industry except that they pay one shilling a year for membership. I do not see what use that is. To suggest that they should have power and control over the directors and have power to change rules seems to be an extraordinary affair. The directors will not know where they are; they will find themselves in a quick-sand. If there is to be membership at all, if the idea is not to get a large membership, why have it on a co-operative basis? The directors, in fact, will find themselves encumbered on the one side, and on the other side they will be merely the creatures of the Minister, because of the fact that the Minister is to have a majority on the board. When the directors have no financial interest themselves in the matter and are nominated by the Minister, it seems to me the Minister's word is going to go on this board and then you are not going to have any independence. Is it suggested that it would not be possible to give the members of this board powers to exercise their discretion in a reasonable way as they would in their ordinary private business and to restrain the Minister from crippling them by too many restrictions. He is to have complete authority over the affairs of the board and to remove and to nominate the directors without stating any reason. He is to have power to make the appointment of manager and I think I may say practically all the regulations. Money matters and so on are not alone to be subject to the scrutiny of the inquisitorial officials from the Ministry of Finance but also subject to the veto of the Department of Fisheries.
I think it would be far better to let the new body go ahead on a commercial basis, and to give them the fullest possible liberty. We cannot in the nature of things discuss the possibility of this scheme as we stand; we want experience of how it is going to work. If we look at it now we may take the most optimistic view, and may say, because we have men on the Board that the House has confidence in, that it is going to be successful, or we may take the opposite view and say, judging by the past record of the Ministry of Fisheries, which has been very bad in the past seven years, then from the very fact that these proposals have emanated from the Ministry no good can come out of them. However, I do not know whether the directors of this co-operative association have made themselves familiar with these matters or not. I presume they have. But I cannot for the life of me see how they are going to work if they are to be held up by the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Fisheries and if, as well as that, they are to be called before general meetings of the people who will not have even the qualification that they are fishermen or that they are interested as producers or otherwise in the fishing industry. I think it is a terrible blot on the whole thing. Certain people may have a sentimental regard for co-operative societies. I have no such regard for them. I do not think they are efficient. If you want a friendly organisation to run a club or a thing like that a co-operative association is all right, but if you want work done it must be on the joint stock basis or on the basis of a board such as the Electricity Supply Board or the Agricultural Credit Corporation.
Another thing is that the directors themselves under the rules are to have power to enter into contract and business arrangements with the organisation, and, as well as that, their remuneration is to be in fact fixed by the Association though sanctioned by the Minister. It seems to me, therefore, that when the question of the directors' remuneration or the directors' contracts with the Association come up for discussion if you are going to have a general meeting of members from all over the country and if by any chance things should not be well with the Association—if, for example, there should be a slump such as there is in the creamery industry at the present time, the directors will be open to be treated very unfairly.
Assuming that they have done their best and have not made that a success, they are going to get the blame, and every Tom, Dick and Harry can go to the meeting and abuse them. You may say the same thing will happen at the shareholders' meeting if the Association was organised on a joint stock basis, but in that case the shareholders would be financially interested in the business and the shareholders should be allowed to say what they thought. In this case the members have no financial interests whatever. They can be members without taking any part in the industry. It is stated also in the rules that there is provision for settling disputes, but it is quite possible that you might settle a thousand disputes under a system of arbitration designed, and which is a very good thing as saving expenses of litigation, but it is conceivable that, run on this democratic basis, it may bring in political and other matters, and you have these disputes from the beginning. You may have one portion of the membership of the organisation on the side of the Minister, let us say, and another portion against, and you may have a feud going on there from the beginning. I think it is bound to happen if you establish an organisation and do not put it on a proper commercial basis.
There is another provision also which shows the weakness of the whole things Rule 182 says that directors shall not be responsible individually for the actions of other directors or for the officials of the Association. In a joint stock company I think the directors would have to bear responsibilities, and I think the directors, to a certain extent at any rate, would have to bear responsibility for the acts of the agents of the company. It seems to me that the implication is here already that you are going to have difference of opinion—I have not examined the matter, and I have no legal opinion on it, but it seems to me that an effort to fix limitations in the matter of individual responsibility is not going to succeed. If one director or one important official is working in an unsatisfactory way and causes dissatisfaction amongst the members of the Association there is no doubt the whole Association is going to get the blame, and the directors themselves, and particularly those who are best, are going to get blame for any mala fide action that may be attributed to the officials themselves.
The Minister has not told us what the functions of his Department are going to be in connection with this Association. Is it contemplated that the officials of his Department are going to work under this new Association, or is it suggested to the taxpayers that side by side with this new organisation—which the State are going to carry and the undertaking I have read which must cost a considerable expenditure annually for its upkeep as well as a certain expenditure of private capital—the Department of Fisheries should be carried on as well? The functions of that Department will be, to my mind, considerably altered when the Sea Fisheries Association is set up. The Sea Fisheries Association will be charged with the control of the sea-fishing industry proper. I cannot see, therefore, how the Department of Fisheries will have any great responsibility in the matter. They will, however, have to do with inland fisheries, with rural industries and with the protection of the fishing industry. They will also collect statistics. I think that all these functions could be carried out by existing Departments without having any Department of Fisheries at all. If the Minister is really in earnest about the fisheries, the best thing he could do would be to throw in his lot personally as director or chairman of this Association and put an end to the absurdity of having a Department which has, in effect, done nothing and which is now going to saddle itself on an Association which might, if left alone, do something but which, with all this red tape and with all these regulations, will be placed in an impossible position. A lot of armchair officials are going to direct it. The taxpayer will be interested and the Department of Finance will be interested. They, through their representative in this House, the Minister for Finance, will tell us the silence to-day on the question of finance suggests that—"You cannot have money for this industry." We may have a re-echo of the Minister's famous statement, that there is no future for the Irish fishing industry. The Department of Finance are not going to get away with that. We must point out to them that we want to see whatever money is being expended on fisheries expended in the way that will give the best possible result.
We are not prepared, I think, to pass this Bill without finding out exactly where we stand in that matter. Are we going to face the annual expenditure of the Department of Fisheries and the new expenditure on this Association as well? It ought to be possible to combine the two and to reduce or abolish the Department of Fisheries, now that one of its chief functions is being taken over. The rural industries branch ought to be able to look after itself. We have set up a special depôt in respect of that, and I see no reason why that depot, and the kelp scheme or any other scheme dealing with the Gaeltacht area should not be brought under the Fisheries Board. If the Fisheries Board is going to deal with the whole question of sea fisheries, is it contended that it could not deal with rural industries, kelp, carrageen moss and any other activities of the Gaeltacht areas? The only other work the Department of Fisheries has to do is to collect statistics. There is, already, a statistics branch, and there is no reason why they should not do this work in conjunction with the Gárda Síochána. There is no reason why the officials whom the Minister would consider absolutely essential to the securing of whatever statistical information is required could not be transferred to the Department of Agriculture. It seems preposterous that we should have a separate Fisheries Department in this country when in Great Britain it is allied with the Department of Agriculture. So long as it is there, it will remain a vested interest, and it will be up to it and the officials to pretend they are doing something, whereas in reality they are doing nothing. This is an opportunity for members of the House who are interested in the question to insist on a drastic reorganisation of the Department of Fisheries. If the £30,000 being spent on salaries, wages and expenses in that Department were handed over to any individual business man conversant with the fishing business—for example, Deputy McDonagh —does any member of the House think that he would not get better results within a single year for the £30,000 than this Department has got for the last seven years? There is not the slightest doubt that he would.
I now come to the Bill. The Bill simply amplifies and strengthens the rules of the Association. The Minister has referred to the hire-purchase system. The granting of loans is to be the basis of the assistance to the industry. These loans are generally to be granted on, I think, a fifty-fifty basis. It was suggested by a Sea Fisheries Conference which the Minister set up in one of his innumerable attempts to do something—he has probably forgotten about it by this time— that those to whom loans were given might be induced to pay up even before the time for payment, if they had the money, by offering a discount of 2½ per cent. or more. I think that is the proper way to approach the question. We are setting up here a definite system of lending money to an industry that we are supposed to believe in. The Minister says that he thinks this Bill will appeal to the vast body of fishermen. He is providing, however, not for an ordinary commercial contract, which could be followed up in court for recovery of the debt, but for a term of imprisonment up to six months if the unfortunate fisherman is not able to pay. There is no use in telling us, as the Minister has told us in regard to practically every one of these sections, that these provisions are not going to be enforced unless the Association so requests. If that were so, what would be the use of passing this Bill at all? If circumstances arose in which the Sea Fisheries Association wanted to take these measures, why could not the Minister then come before the House with his proposals? He wants this Bill passed, and yet he admits that some of the provisions are so extraordinary that he could not take responsibility for carrying them into effect. The proposal to inflict imprisonment upon a fisherman who may not be able to pay is very severe, and will have to be drastically altered. It simply shows, as I said before, that the co-operative basis is the wrong basis. The co-operative creamery in Ballymacelligott had to go to the House of Lords to try to enforce a contract against some of their members, and even then, I think, they did not succeed. A special clause is being introduced to help out the co-operative society in the enforcing of contracts where the co-operative society itself is essentially and intrinsically weak, and is not able to enforce its own regulations. I think that that is approaching the question from a wrong direction. There is no suggestion that the directors are going to have a discretion. If they let a case pass, then they will have set a precedent, and they cannot go back.
On the other hand, if they set out to implement this section, imposing imprisonment or heavy fines on defaulting fishermen, where is it going to stop? I should not like to be at a directors' meeting at which it would be announced that proceedings were being taken in a bad season against fishermen in Donegal or Connemara. This is approaching the matter from the wrong point of view. I think the Association should be allowed to go ahead and see what they could do. If it is impossible to lend money without a reasonable chance of return, they should adopt some other basis. In the present position, where there are so many loans outstanding, I think if they went frankly on the basis of employing the fishermen themselves and paying them a regular wage until the scheme came into operation, it would have been much better. The loan business may be all right in good times, but in bad times like the present, and with the industry in the condition in which it is, I doubt if you are going to get anywhere even with this proposal for inflicting imprisonment on defaulters.
As regards the loans, another important matter is this: We are asked to pass the principle of a severe clause inflicting imprisonment on these people, and we are not to be told what the rate of interest on the loans is going to be. If the rate is going to be five or six per cent. it will be too high. Unless the Government can definitely say that they will pay the annual expenses and grant a certain sum at a very small rate of interest to enable the fishermen to get the loans, I do not see any hope at all for the Association. There is a provision with regard to agents who sell fish by public auction. They are not otherwise to be concerned in the business. The Minister says that is not to be enforced unless there is a request from the Association to enforce it. How is the Minister going to secure that an agent will not get what is called a "hand-over," or be connected with the persons with whom he is dealing, who may offer some financial inducement? The only alternative is to send down officials, but there are too many officials already, and I suggest that we should not appoint any more. We ought to take these men away and approach the question from a commercial point of view. I think the Association ought to be able to get men who have experience of the industry who will get going, and not pay attention to any other consideration, men who will make this scheme go, dispose of the fish, and do the work which the directors lay out for them. That is the sort of men we want.
As regards Part IV of the Bill I am opposed to the provisions dealing with the retailing of fish. Is it suggested that the Department or the officials of the Association are going to set up retail shops themselves? They have power to do so. I take it that is not intended. It would not be accepted that they could make it a paying proposition. What they are not prepared to do themselves, even though it might give them a certain monopoly which might eventually come to something, they are going to make other people do. Apart from the question of interference with retailers who are now selling fish, there is the question of whether it is an economic proposition for a man in a small town of three or four thousand of a population, to instal all his equipment which the Minister demands. If a man wants to set up a fish shop he will have to get in a refrigerator, a fish slab and a water supply and to satisfy the Minister that his fish is being marketed in a clean way and is quite free from contamination. In other words the retailer of fish is being asked by the Minister for Fisheries to do things that the retailers of other foodstuffs have not been asked to do by the Minister for Public Health although we have a number of Public Health Acts and special medical officers of health throughout the country. Is it suggested that the unfortunate people who are selling fish are going to have a standard set up for them, which is far higher than the standard established for butchers, fruit sellers or the sellers of bread, butter or dairy products generally? I don't think it is an economic proposition. I do not think you will get people in small towns to set up shops in that way. If it is a medical question I think the Minister for Local Government and Public Health should tackle the butchers' shops and other shops which are selling foodstuffs. You have only to walk down a street in Dublin and if there are not cobwebs on the foodstuffs exhibited there, you will see flies and insects of all kinds and the food subject to all kinds of contamination.
If we are going out on a ramp of clean food for the consumer, let us consider it very seriously, but let us not put it into operation in respect of one particular section of the community only, even though I admit that in this case the food is perishable. Would it not be better for the Minister to pick out certain retailers throughout the country—I presume he has discussed the question with them —and say to them: "I realise that you cannot go ahead satisfactorily, but I am prepared to grant you a loan to fit up your shop. If you do that I will give you the agency in your particular district." I think it would be much better to give them facilities to set up proper shops against which there could be no complaint than to rush into a proposal to condemn all shops and in effect to prevent the sale of fish except in shops which come up to this high standard. The Bill refers to premises, and I do not know if the premises include hawkers or not. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to state whether "premises" in sections 13 and 14 includes hawkers' vehicles.
