It seems rather strange that whenever the Tariff Commission reports, after having examined the pros and cons of a case as regards the imposition of a tariff on some commodity, the Fianna Fáil Party should automatically table a motion of this kind. One would imagine from that that the fact that the Tariff Commission reported against the imposition of a tariff was an argument for its imposition. There must be a thousand and one articles coming into the country free of duty about which we never have a motion such as this. As far as this question is concerned, I would say that when the Tariff Commission reports against the imposition of a tariff on fish barrels it has, at least, very good arguments against such an imposition. Unless stronger arguments were brought forward in favour of the imposition of a tariff, then the report of the Commission should be accepted. No one, I think, could say that in the speeches so far made any such arguments were made. All the arguments brought forward by Deputy Lemass and Deputy Cassidy were considered by the Tariff Commission.
Deputy Lemass says that the Tariff Commission were more influenced by the difficulties of the Scotch drifters and the Scotch curers than they were by the difficulties of the Free State curers or the Free State barrel manufacturers. I do not think so for a moment. I think their chief concern, and rightly so, was for the working fishermen, because they are the basis of our fishing industry. Any proposal that would have the effect of putting them in a less favourable position than they are in at present would be ridiculous. At present their position is very far from being good. Anything that would increase the cost to them of putting their catches on the market would be reflected in the prices they would get. There was undoubtedly, as was pointed out, an assurance given by some of the principal firms engaged in barrel-making that the imposition of this 33? per cent. tariff would not be followed by any increase in the price of the barrel. At first sight it is hard to see how that could be, but, assuming that it is so, the fisherman's lot would still be disimproved because of the peculiar circumstances prevailing in the fishing industry here.
It has been pointed out that the herring curing in this country is already in the hands of non-Saorstát curing firms. That, of course, is an unfortunate position, but we must face up to the fact that it is so. No one has suggested that it would be desirable to drive them away. They have a very considerable value under present circumstances. They are of value not only to the fishermen but to the particular port to which they come. We are more concerned with their value to the fishermen. They are undoubtedly welcomed by the fishermen because of the fact that they create a considerable market in the port to which they come and there are, therefore, competitive prices for the fishermen's catches. They have a value which is of a lesser kind also to the fisherman in that large fleets of boats more easily locate shoals of herrings than a small number of boats could. When any portion of the fleet locates a shoal the word is passed round and everyone avails of the fact that a shoal has been struck. Their value to the port is due to the local earnings provided for gutters, cleaners, carters, hotel keepers, and so on. It has been suggested that this tariff would not, in fact, drive out these Scotch and English curers. I am afraid that if that were to be acted on it would be taking an undue risk. The fact is that the margin of difference which influences these curers to operate in the Saorstát as against operating elsewhere is very small. When the shoals move, say, thirty or forty miles from the Saorstát coast it would be just as economical for them to operate from Oban as from Donegal or from the Welsh coast as far as Howth is concerned. The fact that they will get cheaper coal there would make it more economical for them. The present position of the herring curing industry is fairly precarious. The fact is that at the moment there are over 200,000 barrels of the last curing still unsold at Yarmouth and Lowestoft. It is estimated that the curers have been working on a net profit of about 1/6 or 2/-a barrel. I believe that is so. That would leave no margin for a tariff of this kind. Either it would wipe out the profit or it would lower the price that the fisherman would get for his catch. The position across Channel as regards herring curing is so bad that it is suggested that the close season this year should be extended to a period later than has ever been adopted before. In the "Fishing News" dated February 7th, the following appears:—
A Scottish herring crisis of the first magnitude is foreshadowed regarding the summer herring fishing. From current talk in fishing circles on the Moray Firth coast, the conclusion seems to be inevitable that unless, in some at present unexpected form, a market be found outside the usual Continental channels for 30 to 40 thousand barrels of Yarmouth-cured herring, it will be necessary to postpone the opening date of the summer fishing to an unheard-of late date, perhaps even to July 1. The summer close time ended last year on June 10, and the latest date previously has been June 23; but, should the opening be set back as far as indicated, the hardship to fishermen will be extremely serious. Indeed, already many herring fishermen are dependent on relief works, and there are hundreds in distress for whom work cannot be found.
That is the present position as far as herring fishing is concerned, and I think we should be extremely careful not to do anything that would worsen that already serious position.
The mackerel curing in this country is in a different position to herring-fishing, in that it is entirely in the hands of Saorstát curers. I was rather amused at the evidence given before the Tariff Commission, on finding that one of the principal opponents of the tariff was a mackerel-curer from Kerry who is a supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party, whereas two of the supporters of the application from Kerry were supporters of the Government. The mackerel-curing industry is already in a very critical position. Up to 25 years ago the United States of America could easily absorb about 100,000 barrels of mackerel. To-day there is great difficulty in disposing of 20,000 barrels there. There are various reasons for that. One reason is that after the war the Americans themselves concentrated a great deal on fishing. Many of the boats that came off war service were converted to that use. A good deal of mackerel is now caught off the American coast. A difference also is noticeable in the taste of the people, very possibly due to the fact that better transit and better methods of cold storage have made fish of a different type available for them, and that they prefer it to the salt fish which they formerly consumed.
At any rate the position in the mackerel business at the moment is pretty bad. A considerable quantity of mackerel cured last autumn is still in the hands of the curers here. Many have realised their stocks at a loss. If we do anything that would increase the cost to the curers here, I think it would hasten the tendency that seems to prevail of cutting out the cured mackerel trade altogether. Much as one would like, and I would like barrel-making to continue and to thrive here, still it would be rather a useless business to do that at the expense of the fishermen, because eventually the fishermen would go and, of course, barrel-making would go with them. I think the report is a very good one. The Tariff Commission went to very considerable trouble to find out the whole position of the industry, they examined all the implications of a tariff very thoroughly, and I think the report should be accepted.
