I move:—
Go ndeantar suim ná raghaidh thar £29,975 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1937, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Iascach Mara agus Intíre, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair.
That a sum not exceeding £29,975 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, 1937, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.
It will be noted that the "Administration" items of this Estimate, namely, those comprised in sub-heads A, B, C and D, are virtually the same in amount as they were 12 months ago. They call for no special comment by me, save perhaps a warning that should there be enacted during the present financial year a rather comprehensive measure dealing with our inland fisheries, the preliminary drafting of which is now in hands, it may be necessary to expand somewhat the administrative and technical staffs for this Service with a consequential increase in the provision now made under these four sub-heads.
Coming to the heading of "Sea Fisheries," I think it will probably be more convenient for all if I deal conjointly with it and the heading "Sea Fisheries Association of Saorstát Eireann," that is to say, with the items covered by the four E sub-heads and the four G sub-heads, respectively. The amount set down at E (1) is less by £30 than the previous year's figure, because in the meantime the Gárda Síochána have found it possible to take over the collection of fishery statistics at a few more of the points where heretofore small annual fees had been paid to local persons for such work. Sub-head E (2) is unaltered from last year.
From the figures set out at sub-head E (3), it will be observed that the Master and officers of the fishery cruiser have now been placed on an established and pensionable basis, a status long enjoyed by those engaged upon duties of a similar character elsewhere. The reduction of £250 in the provision for stores and maintenance is explained by the fact that during 1935 this vessel underwent an exceptionally heavy overhaul, and the figure of £3,750 is considered to be adequate for the coming year. It is difficult to measure closely the requirements for the item General Expenses, which relates mainly to the operation of the Sea Fisheries Protection Act, 1933, as expenditure upon it is liable to vary considerably one year with another; but in view of actual outlay made during the past couple of seasons, the provision has been reduced from £500 to £200 this year.
I may say that since taking over the fisheries services just two years ago there is perhaps no subject upon which so much advice has been tendered to me by correspondents as this one of sea fisheries protection. There are those who hold that the work can be done effectively only by fishery cruisers of adequate tonnage, and there are others who believe that the solution of the problem would lie in the provision of a number of small, fast craft located at various points on the coast. At all events everyone is satisfied that the effective patrol of our entire coastline by one cruiser is not possible. The present vessel, which has been in commission since 1908, although well preserved, is past her first youth, and any delay that has arisen in giving effect to the intention already expressed by me more than once of providing a second cruiser is to be explained by administrative considerations as to the best method of dealing with the matter. Should we, for instance, dispose of the "Muirchu" and replace her by one or two new vessels, or should we continue her in commission for some time longer and charter a second vessel as her consort on patrol duty while we are planning a permanent arrangement for the efficient policing of our exclusive fishery limits? I incline to the latter alternative, and am having steps taken accordingly.
Turning now to sub-head G (1), I have to explain that when the Sea Fisheries Association began to function in April, 1931, an understanding was reached between the directors of that body and the Minister for Finance whereby a grant-in-aid of not less than £10,000 per annum was to be provided by the Exchequer towards the administrative expenses of the Association during the first five years. The amount was raised to £11,000 last year in view of certain exceptional expenditure which was anticipated but which did not in fact arise. The provision for the coming year has been set down at £10,000, but the directors have been notified that the Association must gradually become self-supporting in this matter of administrative expenses, and that this Exchequer grant will henceforth be reduced somewhat year by year.
I should like to deal with sub-heads G.2 and G.3 together, because in practice the operations of the Association that are financed from moneys provided on these sub-heads are, to a considerable extent, interwoven. It will be recalled that the primary objective in setting up this body was to provide a means of enabling our fishermen to obtain boats and gear on terms other than those of repayment by fixed half-yearly instalments guaranteed by substantial sureties who, in view of the unsatisfactory results to such persons under the former loan system, would not readily be forthcoming. The hire-purchase system of the Association is essentially one in which the fisherman works the chattel hired to him under the guidance of the Association to the extent that his catch is marketed for him, and from the proceeds a certain share is retained by the Association in liquidation of the member's liability. It is undoubtedly the case that, owing to the Association having started work at a time when the herring shoals had (we all hope temporarily) deserted our shores, the returns from hire purchase transactions have not been as good as was expected. If, however, Deputies will turn to sub-head H of this Estimate, that is "Appropriations-in-Aid," they will observe that the estimated repayments by the Association have risen from £3,000 last year to £4,500 now. That this is a reliable and firm estimate is shown by the fact that the figures furnished in similar circumstances in respect of the preceding two years have, on each occasion, been somewhat exceeded in practice.
One feels, therefore, that the Association is justifying its existence. Of course, these results by way of repayments from hire-purchasers have only been made possible by the development of marketing operations by means of the funds made available to the Association at sub-head G. 2. This provision which has been reduced from £12,000 to £10,000 must of necessity be a gradually diminishing one, as, while preliminary expenses upon the opening up of new centres and the initiation of schemes are a fair charge upon public funds, such efforts must aim at being commercially sound and in that way become a lessening charge year by year upon the Exchequer. An increase of £2,000 is shown in the figure at G.3 for repayable advances, so as to enable the Association to discharge certain commitments to members in respect of boats and gear.
Under sub-head G.4 provision is made for repayable advances in connection with structural works of development. One of these is the construction near Gortnasate, County Donegal, of a storage pond for lobsters and crayfish which, when in operation, will enable the Association to obtain for members resident in that area much better returns for their shellfish than, owing to the absence of organised marketing, has been possible heretofore. Another work long in contemplation which, originally, had been marked for financing from this source, was the setting up of a cleansing tank for mussels. This project has been so long under discussion that one can easily understand the note of discontent that is being sounded by those concerned in the industry at the delay that has occurred.
The explanation of that delay is simply one of practicability, and, after consultation with those who have specialised on the subject, I am convinced that the only effective method of dealing with this matter would be to have the mussels taken over from the gathers by the Sea Fisheries Association, by whom the shellfish would be cleansed or purified at a centrally situated and properly equipped plant before being despatched to market. The plans and the bills of quantities have been prepared for such a plant, a site has been on offer, and there only remains the question whether our mussels, when duly certified to have undergone such cleansing process, will be assured of entry to those markets from which, on the plea of being a danger to public health, they have been debarred. The process of convincing the medical officers of health at many of these centres on this point must be a gradual one; but, obviously, until an assured outlet for the mussels after the cleansing process has been obtained, those charged with the care of Exchequer funds will naturally be slow to provide the money required for erecting such a plant. It only remains to say that negotiations are still actively proceeding.
Before leaving this subject of our sea fisheries I should like to say that while we have gone through a bad spell for the herring fishery, there are definite signs of a revival, and my Department is doing everything possible to ensure that markets shall be available if and when the shoals once more materialise on our coasts. As regards the mackerel fisheries, once the mainstay of our fishermen in the south-west, it is unfortunately the fact that even if this fish returned to our waters in anything like the quantities that prevailed in former years, the difficulty of marketing the cured product would be immense. Owing to changes in public taste in the United States of America, the demand for that commodity has fallen off in what had been our principal market. With a view to developing other markets, a bounty was paid for a limited period last year upon consignments of pickled mackerel sent to countries other than Great Britain (which does not buy that commodity), and a certain temporary fillip was undoubtedly given to the industry, payment of the bounty having been made conditional upon the guarantee of a minimum price to the fishermen whose mackerel was taken for curing. The results, however, were not conclusive; and I am favourably considering an application received for a renewal of the arrangement by way of further trial.
As regards the demersal or trawl fisheries, I should like to record my opinion that there is here a very fine opportunity for properly utilised commercial capital. The home market, now supplied from cross-Channel sources, is a very valuable one open to exploitation by a well-organised Saorstát trawling company. I recommend this thought to the consideration of our capitalists.
With regard to the inland fisheries, the expenditure proposed on them is set out under the four "F" sub-heads. At F.1 an increase of £850 is shown over last year's provision, of which £600 represents an addition to the aggregate amount provided for issue by way of grants to boards of conservators, some of whom have been in grave difficulties during the first couple of seasons as regards the maintenance of protection as their areas. The other £250 of the increase is in respect of the payments to local bodies whose income from rates has been adversely affected beyond a certain point by reason of the payment direct to boards of conservators of so much of the rates as are assessed upon fisheries. At sub-head F.2 a reduction of £120 is shown as compared with last year. It has been decided to discontinue the arrangement under which a fish hatchery at Blackcastle, on the Boyne, had for some years been subsidised from State funds, experience having shown that this hatchery was not suitable for the supply of ova to Saorstát rivers generally, as had been in contemplation when the subsidy arrangement was made. The other sub-heads, F.3 and F.4, show no change as compared with the previous year's figures.
Deputies will, no doubt, expect me to say something about the report presented by the Inland Fisheries Commission some 12 months ago and as to my intentions, by way of legislative proposals, following upon consideration of that document. These proposals which, as I stated earlier, are now at the stage of preliminary drafting, have not yet been formulated to a degree that would permit of my referring to them in anything but general terms. When speaking on the subject here last July, I expressed the hope of introducing such proposals within a year from then, and I now think that my intentions in that respect will be duly fulfilled.
The report itself was circulated quite recently, and most Deputies have, no doubt, read it through, although perhaps many of them may not yet have found time for a critical examination of its contents. It will probably suffice for our present purpose if I call attention to the summary of recommendations which appears at page 47 of the report. It will be noted that the major recommendations include the setting up of a body corporate to be known as "The Central Fishery Board," by whom the fisheries generally (with the exception of private angling rights in the upper waters) would be worked and administered, by whom the salmon, trout and eel would be captured and marketed, and by whom a predetermined number of salmon would each year be permitted to reach the upper waters for the provision of angling sport and for the maintenance of stock. That Central Board would normally operate by means of trap weirs, one of which would be erected on each salmon river. As a corollary, all netting for salmon, trout or eels except such as might be undertaken in exceptional circumstances by the Central Board would be abolished. Incidentally the boards of conservators would be abolished and replaced by local managers acting under the Central Board and assisted in each case by an advisory committee constituted differently from the present boards. Furthermore, all estuarine salmon and trout fisheries, all eel fisheries, and all fishing weirs would be taken over and administered by the Central Board.
While, as I have already stated, I am not now in a position to do more than discuss the question in very general terms, I should like it to be known that I find myself unable to accept the proposal for the abolition of all netting. It is undoubtedly the case that some degree of restriction upon netting as now practised is necessary, but anything done in that direction will be designed so as to inflict the minimum of hardship on those concerned. I am not satisfied that this scheme for the general use of trap weirs on our salmon rivers is practicable. At any rate, unless and until some years' experience had been had of the working of such a trap weir it would be very unwise to commit ourselves to any such system. As regards the proposed Central Board, my view is that it would not be desirable to have in existence a body with administrative functions while at the same time bearing the responsibility of developing fisheries on a commercial basis. At any rate I do not feel that the supersession of the present Board of Conservators by local managers (with the aid of advisory committees) working under the proposed Central Board would be an improvement on the present system; and it follows that there would really be available none of the work or responsibilities which the report envisages as being allocated to the Central Board.
There are a great many relatively minor but really important matters dealt with in this report, many of which I would propose to have reflected in the forthcoming Bill. These matters. together with the question of acquisition by the State of certain estuarine and weir fisheries, are, however, all at the moment the subject of examination by means of inter-Departmental discussions, and I feel that Deputies will agree with me in suggesting that it would be more appropriate to refrain from any detailed or definite statement upon them until I come to introduce the contemplated legislation.