Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Nov 1937

Vol. 69 No. 6

Control of Imports Orders—Motions of Approval. - Sea Fisheries (Protection of Immature Fish) Bill, 1937—Second Stage.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move that this Bill be now read a second time. The object of the Bill is to protect under-sized and immature fish from the ordinary methods of fishing. Numerous complaints have been received from time to time from fishermen all over the country that under-sized and immature fish were being caught and sold at a cheap rate, and in that way were bringing down the price of fish generally, thereby depriving our fisheries of a fuller supply of fish later on. Regulations of the nature provided for in this Bill are already in force in most Western European countries. Measures similar to this will, it may be assumed, be adopted by all the countries adhering to the International Convention signed on the 23rd March of this year by the representatives of this and nine other countries, namely, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Iceland, Norway, Poland and Sweden. All the signatories undertook to enforce provisions similar to this within their own fishery limits and in their own boats. The regulations made relate to the effective size of the mesh of the net, and impose limits on the size of the fish landed or offered for sale. The fishes dealt with are: cod, haddock, hake, plaice, witches, lemon sole, black sole, turbot, brill and megrims.

This Bill is an enabling Bill. It empowers the Minister to prescribe the minimum size of the mesh of nets, and the minimum size of the fish to be landed or marketed. The size to be so prescribed will be based on the recommendations of the International Council for the Study of the Sea whose headquarters are at Copenhagen. The regulations will, of course, be applicable to all our own sea fishing boats, as well as to any others found within our exclusive fishery limits. The sections of the Bill are, I think, self-explanatory. Perhaps I should explain that Section 8 adopts certain provisions of the Sea Fisheries Protection Act, 1933, and tell Deputies what these provisions are. Under that Act a sea fisheries protection officer has power to stop any ship within our fishery limits for the purpose of identifying that ship or of boarding that ship. Our protection officer may board the ship and may require the master or crew to produce its certificate of identity, and also the log book or any other documents which may be kept that he is concerned with. He may ask for an explanation of anything that he may find in these log books or documents. He may take the name and address of any person on board. If he suspects the ship of being engaged in any illegal practice, he may take the ship to the nearest or most convenient port, and may use force in doing any of these things. That Act also provides for fine or imprisonment on any person obstructing or impeding the protection officer in the exercise of his duty, and it indemnifies him against legal proceedings in respect of anything he did under the authority of the Act. The Act further authorises the protection officer to hold the boat at port pending the institution of legal proceedings before a justice of the District Court, or a peace commissioner, and authorises the hearing of the case by a district justice. It provides for the detention of the boat pending the hearing of an appeal. The Act provides for the recovery of fines and for the prosecution of any person at the suit of the Minister. Section 9 of the Bill is taken substantially from the 1925 Act. Section 24 of the Fisheries Act of 1925 is almost the same as Section 9 of this Bill.

Mr. Benson

The first essential of good legislation is that it be enforceable. I have no doubt at all that the provisions of this Bill are excellent, but will its purpose be achieved? At the moment one of the greatest suppliers of matter for the humorous journals of this country is our fishery protection vessel. Now we are being asked to pass another Bill which seems to provide additional scope for the operations of that vessel. I would like to know whether the Minister proposes to take any steps to make the present operations of that vessel more effective, or to employ more vessels so that the protection of our fisheries may become effective.

Mr. O'Neill

I should like to agree with what the previous Deputy has said and to point out that what he has said is really true—in other words, that this question of fisheries in this country has become a sort of a joke. I suggest that, if the Minister will look over the statistics relating to the fish industry—or what was at one time an industry in this country—he will see that it has practically disappeared, and that, as I have stated in this House before, the disappearance of the industry is becoming more rapid as time goes on. From time to time, the Minister has been urged to do something to protect the fish industry that we have, or had, and nothing whatever has been done in connection with it. There is no form of activity for the protection of the fish industry except the "Muirchu" coming along now and again and catching a foreign trawler, having a fine imposed and having the trawler's gear confiscated. As a matter of fact, latterly, we have not been very successful even in that. I am sure it will have been observed by Deputies that there was a very peculiar case recently in Bantry in which, owing to some legal technicality, or something in connection with the bye-laws, the boat concerned got away; and yesterday, in Waterford, there was a case of a boat also getting away, under somewhat similar circumstances. I suggest that this makes this question of the protection of our fisheries ridiculous. This Bill is not a Bill to deal with the protection of fish, but to deal with the protection of immature fish. The trouble is, however, that there are no fish in this country to be got at all, either mature or immature, and I think we should lay down very stringent rules —rules which, perhaps, may not be enforceable—to deal with this whole question, and that something should be done to provide our people with some proper way of catching the fish and also protecting our fisheries from the depredations of marauding foreign trawlers.

This question affects the hardest-working and poorest of our people. It affects, particularly, the maritime constituencies. I have brought all the influence on the Minister I could bear, with the object of seeing that something should be done for these poor people, and nothing is being done except what has been done through the very belated efforts of the Sea Fisheries Protection Association. So far as I can see, nothing has been done through the Department itself. If the Minister will look at the recent Statistical Abstract he will see that since his Party came into office we have had a decrease of more than 25 per cent. in the number of people engaged in the fishing industry and that the number of boats has correspondingly decreased. I think that the maximum number of people engaged in the fishing industry in this country is 7,000, and it must be remembered that this country has the largest coast-line of any country in Europe.

My suggestion is that we are not serious in this country about this question of the fishing industry. If we were serious about it, we would try to do something to remedy the situation; we would try to bring some kind of knowledge to bear on the matter; and I accuse the Minister of doing nothing in connection with this very important matter. I make that accusation against the Minister with the reservation, of course, that I know he has other problems—particularly on the agricultural side—which take up too much of his time and which, therefore, do not give him the time to deal with this important question of the fishing industry. Nevertheless, I think the Minister should know that that industry is, or at least should be, very important. Important as it should be, however, it is worth scarcely anything to this country at present. We land something like £130,000 worth of fish in this country ourselves and we import twice that amount. That is a very serious matter, and I suggest that something should be done in the Minister's Department with a view to getting hold of people who would be really serious about the fishing industry and who would tackle the problem in a broad spirit and in the proper way— people who would infuse some imagination into the Department. From the point of view of that industry, I suggest that the Department is becoming moribund. So far as this Bill is concerned, it looks to me as if we will have to bring in a Bill to put some life into the Fisheries Department itself. From that point of view, I look upon this Bill as so much waste of time. I understand that the Bill is being brought in in accordance with a convention arrived at between other European countries. It may be very good for these other countries because, probably, they have fish to deal with, but it is a bit of a farce to draw a distinction in this country between mature and immature fish when you have no fish of any kind to deal with.

Seosamh O Mongain

Tá mé a cheapadh gur ceart an Bille seo a thabhairt isteach. Tá orainn an méid éisc is feidir a shábháil, is cuma cé'n cineál atá ann. Tá faitchíos orm go bhfuilimíd féin ag déanmh go leor dochair ag tógail an t-iasc beag nach bhfuil maith ann dúinn-fhéin nó do dhuine ar bith eile. Má cuirfear an Bille seo i bhfeidhm, sabhálfá sé go leor éisc mar, gan aimhreas, tá muiriní beaga ghá dtógáil againn agus gha gcaitheamh uainn agus ghiomaigh beaga agus oistrí beaga. Tá mé a cheapadh go gceannuitear iad seo go minic faoi na luach agus go bhfuigheann na ceannuightheóiri ar siubhal leo, ach, faoin Bhille seo, ní feidir sin a dheanamh. Mar sin, ceapaim go ndéanfá sé maith.

Mr. Fionán Lynch

I think, Sir, that I find myself rather more in agreement with Deputy Mongan than with Deputies Benson or O'Neill in connection with this matter. After all, this Bill is an enabling Bill, and the provisions, as set out in the Bill, deal with matters that have been asked for by the fishermen themselves in this country and by the Sea Fisheries Protection Association. The Bill enables the Minister to make Orders in connection with the seizure or the catching of certain types of fish, and so on, and I think that, at least, the Bill, does not deserve to be spurned. The provisions in the Bill are good provisions and, for what they are worth, the House ought to give them a fair reception. Now, the Minister pointed out that Section 9 of the new Bill has been taken more or less word for word from the 1925 Act. I forget the provisions of the particular section of the 1925 Act concerned, but there is just one point in connection with this Section 9 of this Bill which struck me as important. I thought it was rather ridiculous that, according to sub-section (d) of Section 9 of this Bill, a sea fisheries protection officer should be authorised and empowered to stop, enter, and search, on any part of the sea or the shores thereof, any boat used for certain types of fishing, and so on. Now, the Fisheries Act of 1925 dealt with inland fisheries, and I take it there are no provisions there for any searches on the sea. Even if there were any provisions dealing with searches, I take it they were confined to our own territorial waters. I think, therefore, that there must be some oversight in sub-section (d) of Section 9 of this Bill in connection with this authorising or empowering a protection officer to make such a search —for what that power would be worth—of a ship on any part of the sea. No sane fisheries officer would attempt to exercise that power outside our own territorial waters, I know, but at the same time, I suggest, there should not be anything in the Bill which would seem to be absurd.

With regard to the Bill itself, I think it should be remembered that it is providing for something which has been agreed upon by a great many of the European countries, and that is that all the countries concerned should bring in similar measures to try to protect immature fish so far as that can be done. It must be remembered, also, that the Minister is only falling into line with other countries in this regard, and he should not be attacked because he has fallen into line in this matter with these other countries. Apart from that, it must also be remembered that there has been a demand from people in this country for the bringing in of such a measure. It is well known that it is not only foreigners coming to our shores who kill immature fish. It is known that amongst the offenders in that connection are some of our own fishermen—some of whom have absolutely no regard for our own or their own future welfare, because they are shortsighted themselves in that regard and take immature fish. While such people make great outcries against the foreigner for taking immature fish, they are quite prepared to do the same thing themselves, and the object of this Bill is to try to stop our own fishermen, as well as the foreigners, from doing so and, so far as the Bill does that, I think it should be welcomed.

Dr. Ryan

I agree with the first Deputy that there is not very much use in passing an Act unless we can enforce it. The inference, I think, in the Deputy's speech was, that we were not in a position to enforce these Acts because our protection service was not what it should be. There has been talk from time to time, both in the Dáil and in numerous journals, about the inadequacy of our protection service. Although I have held here, on some occasions at any rate, that our protection service was not altogether to be despised, I did think that it would be better if we could get a second cruiser. We have been trying to get a cruiser, and I think we have now succeeded in getting one in addition to the "Muirchu"; and if no legal or engineering inspection crux should arise, we should have a second cruiser in our service in a very short time. That is an answer to the question as to whether we intended to increase our protective service. I think, however, that we should say that the "Muirchu" has been very successful, even though she is all alone.

Deputy O'Neill complains that we lost two cases recently owing to legal technicalities. Naturally, these legal technicalities would not have been discovered were it not for the fact that the "Muirchu" had captured two vessels and brought them in. Of course, she did bring in many more, and fines were inflicted in these cases. Deputy O'Neill more or less disparages that sort of thing. He said he did not see the use of the "Muirchu" going out, bringing in a vessel, having a fine inflicted, and then letting her off again. What does he want us to do? Does he want us to declare war on the country concerned? We cannot go very much further, and we never intended to go further than to capture a poaching vessel, inflict a fine, and let her off again. We have, of course, power to confiscate a vessel if we catch her two or three times, and that may be done. For the present we cannot do any more.

Deputy O'Neill talks of these poaching vessels coming in and taking our fish. He complains at the same time that there is no fish being caught by our own fishermen. If it is a fact that these poaching vessels can come in and reap a rich harvest, and that our own fishermen are not catching any fish, I think our own fishermen must be somewhat to blame. I do not think it is a fact. I do not think these trawlers are getting such a rich harvest at all. They are not very often within the fishery limit, I believe, and on the few occasions on which they were there, perhaps they have not done so well as some people imagine. However, I agree with Deputies that we should do something to improve the lot of our fishermen so far as we can. I do not know whether Deputy O'Neill is right or not in his figures as to the decline of fishing. I know that fishing has been declining, but I do not know that his figures are correct—that it has gone down 25 per cent. in the last five or six years. That may be, but that would not be the beginning of the decline here—on that I am quite definite. I do not know if the blame can be laid upon either the present Minister for Fisheries or any of his predecessors, because, as Deputy O'Neill says, they have bigger things to occupy their minds, such as agriculture and other matters. The same trouble appears to be confronting Ministers in all other countries. I do not know whether we can give a very easy explanation of this.

Deputy O'Neill points out that, while we are catching a certain amount of fish, there are big imports coming in. I agree with what that argument would appear to indicate— that we should keep out these imports and supply the demand with our own fish. I have been making great efforts for the last few years to try to get a trawling company going here, because I think that we could not possibly at the moment shut out the imports of fish and then wait while we were building up our own inshore fisheries. If we had a good trawling fleet, we could undoubtedly shut out the imports of fish. I have announced in the Dáil and elsewhere on many occasions during the last few years that there is an opportunity there for a commercial company to come in and take over the trawling, and if that were done, I think we would be perfectly justified in protecting our market then for our own fishermen, including our own trawler company. There has been some progress made in that also, and I hope, if successful in getting this company going, that it may be possible to come before the Dáil with the necessary legislation to do what Deputy O'Neill has in view.

Mr. Dillon

How many trawlers will the Irish market keep permanently employed?

Dr. Ryan

I would not like to say off-hand. That is one of the matters that will take a good deal of consideration in detail before it can be decided. They must fish on separate grounds, and provide for the different varieties of fish required, and for the landing of that fish in the different centres as required. All these details have to be gone into. I think it is possible to deal with all these matters and to get a trawling company going that will make it possible to protect our market, and then I believe we will be in a much better position to give a better market and more protection to our inshore fishermen. I do not think there was any other point raised. I only say that the matters which do not strictly arise out of the Bill, those big matters of protection of our fisheries and protection of our market, are matters that have been engaging my attention for some time, but they are by no means easy matters to solve.

Mr. Dillon

Before the Minister concludes, might I ask a question? In the interim while his plans are maturing, will he consider this plan? He may find in it a permanent solution of most of his difficulties. That is simply to say to the inshore fishermen with whom I am concerned —I am not interested in trawling; I am only interested in our inshore fishermen—"Go out and fish, and I will take all the fish you can catch from you, at a modest price"; and then bring that fish to Dublin, Cork, and the other centres where there is a market for fish, sell as much as he can, and, if necessary, give away the balance? The Minister is subsidising sugar beet at an immense sacrifice. The total annual sum necessary to put that plan into operation would be microscopic, and, in the course of five years, it would quadruple the number of men who could make a living out of inshore fishing. That is a simple plan. I admit the Minister would suffer a loss. I am prepared from this side of the House to support the Minister or the Minister for Finance in raising whatever money is necessary to meet that loss. If that is done, it will employ every unemployed inshore fisherman in this country within six months. There is a concrete suggestion. Will you consider it?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know if I would be in order in going into the question of financing beet-growing on this Bill. The plan suggested by the Deputy is so simple and obvious that it has been considered by every Minister for Fisheries in this country, by every official in the Department, and by everybody who has anything to do with the Sea Fisheries Association, I am quite certain. Nobody could escape examining that plan. Without going into all the intermediary arguments, I say that the plan is not possible until we can first assure our consumers that we are going to have sufficient fish for them. That will be the next step.

Mr. Dillon

Why not let the foreign fish come in and sell the home fish against it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I allowed the Deputy to ask a question, but he has made a speech on the question.

Mr. Dillon

I did not go beyond that except to put a simple scheme to the Minister. Let the foreign fish come in and put the domestic fish against it. There are many men hungry and miserable because there has been no solution of this question.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 17th November.