Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 1 Mar 1940

Vol. 78 No. 16

Supplementary and Additional Estimates, 1939-40. - Vote 53—Fisheries.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1940, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Iascach Mara agus Intíre, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair agus chun íocaíochta alos cúitimh.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1940, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid, and for a payment on account of compensation.

There are two matters dealt with in this Supplementary Estimate. One involves nothing more than a rearrangement of the items comprised in the total sum of £18,000 already voted for the purposes of the Sea Fisheries Association under the sub-head G (2) and G (3) of the original Estimate. Under sub-head G (2) there was provided £8,000 by way of Grant-in-Aid of development work and under sub-head G (3) £10,000 by way of repayable advances for the supply of boats and gear. When war conditions arose last September, fish exports from Britain ceased temporarily, and we became entirely dependent upon our home landings. I thereupon urged the Committee of the Association to take special measures to increase the landings of our inshore fishermen; and in compliance with that request the committee immediately proceeded to acquire stocks of gear and to purchase, before prices rose, some suitable second-hand vessels then for sale at Cross-Channel ports. In that way they succeeded in making some very satisfactory deals but, as the amount available on sub-head G (3) was not sufficient to meet these exceptional demands in addition to the normal requirements of members, we allowed the committee to utilise in this way £5,000 of the money voted to them under sub-head G (2), inasmuch as it was obviously better in the circumstances to postpone certain contemplated experimental works of development in favour of this provision of boats and gear for immediate use. I feel that Deputies will have no difficulty in agreeing with this resettlement of the sub-heads in question.

The other part of the Estimate—that which purports to make provision for special insurance of certain steam trawlers—is capable of simple explanation; but inasmuch as any reference to steam trawlers, just now, is provocative of a general discussion upon our sea-fishing industry and those connected with it, I propose to avail myself of this opportunity to correct some of the statements, possibly well meant but certainly misinformed, that have been appearing on this subject.

So far as the £2,800 mentioned in the Estimate is concerned, the need for providing this money arises in the following circumstances. In addition to the ordinary form of marine insurance, there were introduced last September special arrangements to cover the exceptional risks arising from war conditions. The ships of the mercantile marine both here and in Great Britain have continued to be covered in respect of such risks under a pool arrangement operated by Lloyds; and all steam trawlers working from ports in the United Kingdom have been afforded similar cover under a special scheme set up by the British Government. As a result, the only steam trawlers in these islands which had to carry on their work subject to those war risks, but without the benefit of any scheme for cover against them, were the vessels working from Dublin. These trawlers were, and still are, insured in the ordinary way in a mutual insurance club in England in respect of the usual marine risks, but the club found itself precluded from extending to these Irish vessels the benefit of cover under the special risks scheme for British trawlers.

The owners of the Dublin trawlers then made application to the Government; and, on careful consideration of the matter, it was decided that for certain reasons, such as the limited spread of the risk involved and the lack of technical staff, it was not feasible to set up a special insurance scheme here. The only alternative was to let the owners secure cover under a Lloyds policy and to reimburse them their actual vouched expenditure in the case. The £2,800 under reference is made up of two sums of £2,050 and £750, respectively. The first-mentioned figure represents the approximate outlay on securing this special cover for nine steam trawlers in the period 20th September, 1939, to 20th February, 1940, and the smaller sum is the estimated cost of covering four trawlers against similar risks during the period 21st February to 31st March, 1940.

I will explain later how the number of vessels has come to be reduced from nine to four, and also the reason for the proportionately higher provision for insurance during the final six weeks of the financial year, as compared with the provision for the five months immediately preceding. My object at the moment is to show that the need for this money which the House is being asked to vote arises solely because of the unique position in which the owners of these vessels have been placed; and that the relief to be afforded them is reasonable and proper.

Turning now to the fishing industry, in the controversy concerning which these trawlers and their owners have loomed so large during the past few months, I think a suitable basis for my opening remarks will be the points raised in the question set down by Deputy Alfred Byrne (junior) a few days ago. Let me take these points in the order in which they are put by the Deputy. He asks am I aware that avoidable unemployment has occurred in the fish trade? My reply is that, while I should be sorry to see avoidable unemployment arising in any business, my interest in what the Deputy has in mind when he speaks of the fish trade is of necessity altogether subordinate to my interest in our national fishing industry. I have already explained very clearly to more than one correspondent that my responsibility as Minister in charge of the fishing service is to see that everything possible is done to improve the conditions for our inshore fishermen, and to ensure that these men shall be afforded every opportunity of repaying the considerable sums of money which this House has generously voted to keep the industry on its feet.

My interest in steam trawlers as such, or in fish traders as such is, therefore, limited to their use as a means of helping our hardworking inshore fishermen to earn a living for themselves and their families. If Deputies will turn to places like Dingle, Arklow, Murrisk, Killybegs, Clogher Head and Balbriggan, and compare the present earnings of the local fishing fleets with their earnings 12 months ago, they will find little grounds for complaint with what is being done for the industry.

The Deputy's next point is that the supplies of fish available are inadequate and that the prices charged to consumers are unreasonable. I quite admit that on occasions during the past four months there has been a serious shortage of supplies and that prices have ranged high. But there have also been, within the same period, occasions of gluts and surplus supplies, with a consequent fall in prices. Precisely similar conditions and similar complaints have obtained during the like period in Great Britain, as anyone who reads the trade papers must be well aware. However, we have now, I believe, passed the peak point of these difficulties here; and that this is so is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that in the newspaper containing Deputy Byrne's forecast of his question, including those complaints of short supplies and high prices, there is set forth in another column an account of the large supplies of fish just then available on the Dublin market, and of the drop of from 6d. to 8d. a lb. in the retail price of fish.

The Deputy asks what steps I propose to take to remedy the matters of which he complains—and let me say that, in the special circumstances of the case, his query was not unreasonable—but I can assure him and the House that I have been, all along, doing everything in my power to provide the remedy, and that, fortunately, I can now fairly claim to be succeeding in these efforts.

Passing now from the specific points raised by Deputy Byrne, I feel that the House would wish me to review briefly, for general information, the sequence of events during the past 18 months— the period in which all this controversy has arisen. Deputies will recollect that for about three years I had been publicly expressing the opinion that there was room in this country for one well managed and properly equipped deep sea trawling company—and, may I add, despite anything that has happened my belief in that formula stands. My object was, of course, not merely to see a trawling company flourish as such, but to supply the varieties of fish that must be sought afar and so make it possible to regulate imports to the advantage of our inshore fishermen; and I urged that persons with money to invest might favourably consider the prospect of reviving the trawling company in Dublin which for certain reasons had almost ceased working. No response of any kind was forthcoming until sometime in 1937, when the group now in control of that company came to me with proposals for its rehabilitation. They were keen and businesslike in their methods and named certain facilities which they would like to have conceded to them. These were——

(a) No other company to be permitted to operate at deep-sea trawling in competition with them,

(b) That the home market be reserved for their company—to be supplied by their own landings plus the necessary additional imports which would be brought in by them,

(c) That they be promised a trade loan guarantee.

I told them that inasmuch as they had been the only persons to respond to my suggestion made consistently for nearly three years, and as I knew, from the history of the business, that there was not room in this country for the destructive competition and wasteful duplication of "overheads" which would ensue from the simultaneous operation of two companies, I would undertake to keep them free from such competition.

As to point (b), I made it plain that they could not have any such monopoly. I said we would endeavour to restrict imports so far as might be practicable having regard to the general good, but that they could not in any event be given control of such imports. As to point (c), I could not, of course, promise them any such guarantee as it was not a matter within my province. I did, however, say that I would try to secure full consideration of any application for such a guarantee which they might see fit to make to the appropriate Department. I may add that their application when made and considered was eventually turned down.

After these preliminary conversations with me some considerable delay arose over the negotiations between this group and the parties who, up to this, had held control of the company's affairs; and it was not until the latter half of 1938 that the company was restarted under these new directors. Since that time they have been subjected to a constant stream of criticism, including charges of being State-aided monopolists, gross profiteers and parasites on the trade. I am sure that these gentlemen are well able to defend themselves, and it is none of my duty to formulate replies to any charges made against them personally; but, where such charges involve an allegation of complicity on the part of me, or my Department, in activities in any wise questionable, it is well to have the facts.

The extent of the so-called "monopoly" may be gauged from the fact that apart from our inshore landings there was imported into this country during 1938 more than 100,000 cwts. of fresh fish, and that during the year 1939 import licences were issued to cover more than 80,000 cwts. of that commodity. If the total covered by these licences was not supplied to the trade, it was no fault of my Department.

Mr. McGilligan

Could the Minister give those imports in value?

Dr. Ryan

I could possibly get them.

Mr. McGilligan

When the Minister speaks of 100,000 cwts., could he not say the average cost? Would it be £1 or less?

Dr. Ryan

I could not.

Mr. McGilligan

There used to be an import of about £300,000.

Dr. Ryan

In the year before this came into operation, the imports were 120,000 cwts., and the Deputy may take it that roughly the same class of fish was brought in since.

At the outbreak of war last September, the export of fish was prohibited by the British authorities, and it was not until the end of the year that the ban was removed. For a short spell thereafter we suspended the issue of licences, as there were certain negotiations pending, and we wished to be clear about the whole position; but for the past three or four weeks I have arranged for the resumption of these import licences as required, in favour of the Sea Fisheries Association, the committee of which are in a position to correlate our requirements by way of such imports with the actual landings by our own people.

This is the first time in the whole history of the industry that it has been found possible to apply this system of co-ordination, and I am satisfied that very good results for all concerned will flow from it. It will eliminate waste in supplies, and waste in effort on the distribution side of the business.

Reverting now to the company and the charge of profiteering made against the directors, I can tell the House that, as the result of an examination of the company's books and accounts, made by an expert on my behalf, I have assured myself that, save for a period of two weeks last September, the business has been run at a loss since the present directors took it over. Indeed, they have to re-arrange their working methods by ceasing the hire of five vessels which they had on charter, and have decided to carry on with the fleet of four trawlers fully owned by the company. We must recollect also that these people have not had one penny subsidy from State funds. Their critics who accused them of profiteering are now out to explain that the company could not possibly have made a profit without properly equipped modern vessels. Be that as it may, the fact remains that none of these critics ever offered to supply even second-rate craft—not to mention modern boats— and that their attitude, therefore, is entirely of the dog-in-the-manger type.

Mr. McGilligan

Did I hear the Minister say that none of the critics ever offered to supply a boat?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Did the Minister not say that he would not allow some of the critics to buy boats? I have a letter here in which the Minister puts himself on record as saying that if anyone attempted to buy boats, he would walk into the Dáil——

Dr. Ryan

Yes, when the others had started; but for three years I have been asking somebody to come along.

Mr. McGilligan

Then that phrase needs a date.

Dr. Ryan

Possibly. The reason for the cost of the special insurance of the remaining four vessels being somewhat higher than what is being reimbursed in respect of the nine vessels up to 20th February is that we feel that insurance to be of real value ought to be for a sum sufficient to ensure complete renewal of the chattel covered. We have, therefore, suggested to the company to increase the cover for those trawlers to a figure commensurate with present values.

It is possible that they may not be able to secure cover at this enhanced valuation; but as the State contribution will only be payable against fully vouched expenditure nothing is risked by now making the larger provision.

I have only to add that with this fleet of four trawlers working to full capacity, and increased landings by our inshore men, added to the necessary quota of imported fish I think we can count on supplies being maintained at prices which in war conditions will be found reasonable by fairminded people. In that way matters should soon right themselves for those engaged in the distribution side of the business and their customers the consumers.

It only remains for me to point out that as against the £2,800 proposed expenditure on this special insurance of the trawlers we can offset £2,790 of a saving on, sub-head E (3)—Maintenance of Fishery Patrol—as set out in the original Estimate. The net difference of £10 is, therefore, the amount shown in this Supplementary Estimate; because, as already explained the £5,000 for the provision of boats and gear is nothing more than a transfer transaction.

Mr. McGilligan

Do I understand from the Minister that the Sea Fisheries Association are now engaged in importing?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Would the Minister point out the article of their articles of association which allows importing?

Dr. Ryan

I am sure I can. I will get it for the Deputy.

Mr. A. Byrne

From a rough glance through the debates on the various fisheries Estimates for the past few years, it would seem that the general procedure is that the Minister comes in here and says: "Well, boys, things are not too good in the fishing industry, but we are just going to turn the corner."

We are a long time coming to that corner. Now the Minister has made a similar speech. He hopes that things will improve. I, too, hope they will improve; but in the meantime I would make a special appeal to the Minister to meet a deputation of the various interests in the fish trade in Dublin. I do not know whether they have already asked him to meet them, but when he does I would ask him to give consideration to their point of view. They will tell him things which, I am sure, he does not know about. They will tell him of unemployment in the distributing end of the trade. Quay-men and salesmen, all have been affected. It is estimated that over 500 fish operatives have lost their employment in the last two years. I can well understand the Minister's concern for the inshore men, in which we all join. He has inferred that there must be casualties. That is what I take from his statement that in order to help the inshore men there may have to be casualties in other directions. Is it worth so many casualties? Has the time not come for a drastic revision of the system or for a public inquiry into the matter?

There was a meeting held in the Dublin Mansion House last Monday night at which 600 or 700 persons concerned in the business were present. All sections were represented there. There were some of the Dublin trawler men, some of the Howth trawler men, representatives of wholesalers and retailers, employees of retail and wholesale firms, and also other workers. They were unanimous that some drastic steps must be taken in the near future or else they will all go down. A resolution was passed unanimously at that meeting calling for a public inquiry into the chaotic condition of the industry and it was decided that the representatives of the trade should meet the following night. At that second meeting a deputation was selected to seek an interview with the Department to discuss matters affecting the trade. I would ask the Minister to meet that deputation. He probably does not have to walk around Dublin so much as I do. For months past whenever I go near the fish market I am buttonholed and asked: "What are you going to do for us? Things are getting worse." Retailers will tell you: "We have been keeping on so many men in the hope that next week will be better, but all the time it is getting worse." One wholesale firm, who two years ago had a staff of 47, not including 13 casuals, is now working with a staff of 20, and they state if the present position continues they will have to close down altogether.

When telling us about the Sea Fisheries Association importing fish the Minister did not tell us that they are making a good profit on that imported fish, estimated at from 20/- to 40/- on a five-stone box. A certain firm when they were importing fish two years ago sold a five-stone box at a profit of from 2/- to 5/-. These figures may be slightly exaggerated in both cases, but even if you were to double the smaller figures and halve the larger figures, there would still be a very big discrepancy. At the meeting at the Mansion House on Monday night it was revealed that less than a fortnight ago a catch of 285 boxes of fish coming into the Dublin port was diverted to Fleetwood and that at a time when, owing to scarcity of fish, the prices of fish were exorbitant. The prices just now are approximately 200 per cent. over the average winter prices two, three, four, or five years ago. I am not at all satisfied that matters are going to improve under the present system, and I ask the Minister to do something drastic about it, either to get more money from the Dáil to put into the trade, or to hold a general meeting of representatives of all the sections, including the inshore fishermen for whom we are all concerned.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy McGilligan asked about the article. It is article 4 dealing with the objects of the association —paragraph (t).

Mr. McGilligan

That is the omnibus business?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Are you going to rely on that?

Dr. Ryan

We have legal opinion.

Mr. McGilligan

That is not to be read in conjunction with the clauses that go before in which there is not a word about importation. It is all about marketing. There is not a word about importation in any single one of the articles of association.

Dr. Ryan

There is not a word about trawling, and the last Government did trawling under it.

Mr. McGilligan

That may be. There are words that are more appropriate to trawling than to importation.

Dr. Ryan

Anyway we got legal opinion and we have to rely on it.

Mr. McGilligan

Is there not a clause which deals with fishing? If trawling does not come under that, it is very close to carrying out fishing operations. However, that is a small point. I should like to ask the Minister one other question. The Minister told us he examined the books of the Dublin Trawling Company and found that in two weeks in September the matter had been run at a loss. Was that in September, 1939?

Dr. Ryan

Run at a profit in two weeks in September, 1939.

Mr. McGilligan

Except for two weeks in September, 1939, there was no profit?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Was it after that date that they decided with his knowledge to cease hiring five trawlers?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

What was their fleet if they were going to cease to hire five trawlers?

Dr. Ryan

They had nine. They owned four and hired five.

Mr. McGilligan

Very well. The Minister put his unfortunate feet again down on this monopoly road. One would have thought that there were so many warning milestones along that road that he might have been a little bit more particular about the circumstances about which he was developing another monopoly. The Minister is instrumental in creating a situation in the direction of a fish monopoly. First there was a monopoly in the bacon business created by the Minister and in addition he helped to create a monopoly in the flour business. The Minister drove 25,000 cwts. of bacon off the breakfast table; he reduced the consumption of loaves by 5,000,000. We have all heard about the parable of the loaves and fishes. The Minister wants to see how far one can go in the reverse direction. He has toiled to destroy or at least to diminish the satisfaction of the requirements of the populace in fish, flour and bacon. He has told us that he made up his mind that there was room for only one trawling company in the country and his whole anxiety is that he is going to stop the wasteful competition that might take place, and the unnecessary overheads which he presumes might have detrimental effects on the consuming public. The public did not loom very largely in the discussion started here to-day by the Minister. He talked about his anxiety about the trawling companies and the inshore fishermen. He went on to tell us how he examined the books of the trawling company, but he did not tell us one word about the question of prices in the fish markets.

The Minister thinks competition will not give us cheap goods. He said it was going to give us wasteful overhead expenses. He spoke about trawler companies fighting here to get the handling and selling of fish. He gave us a picture of competition between these companies. If there is competition between trawling companies, one of them would go to the wall and the other would supply the market. As long as it was open to any other people to start there was always room for someone else, but when the monopoly was created this disappeared. For years past this business operated when there was a chance of competition; the strong man pushed the weaker to the wall, but in the process the consumer got cheap goods. For some reason that the Minister has not stated he put an end to this state of things. He tells us that he looked up the records and the books of this trawling company and he made up his mind that free competition in the supplying of goods here was not to continue. He made up his mind that there was only going to be one trawling company. To-day he told us that none of the critics themselves offered to supply a boat. When talking about this he told us that he could not get any results until somewhere in 1937 when a certain group came to him.

It should be mentioned that this was a group that had not been to any great extent interested in deep sea trawling up to 1937. But then this group saw their chance. They walked into him and they started business in 1938. He told us they were "keen business people." I should say that they merited that description if by "keen business people" you mean people who are looking after themselves. They wanted no competition in their business. The home market was to be entirely reserved for them and if any imports were required beyond what they were able to supply themselves they were to be the judge of the imports. What fish they were unable to take themselves they could buy it elsewhere. They would rule the fish prices. Having insisted on a giltedged monopoly they then went to look for a Government loan. They were not content to invest fully their own money in a company that was going to be granted full and complete protection from competition. Not merely protection from competition but there was to be no question of importing fish at any time.

I do commend the Minister for his application of the two words used by him—"keen and businesslike". Some people would use the word "vultures" but the Minister uses the euphemistic words "keen and businesslike". That was how they thought the road should be made smooth for them. The Minister did not agree to all these things. But it was he who talked about having room for only one company. "There was no room for competition and wasteful methods." They were going to be the only company that would be allowed to trawl around these coasts. He said he was not giving them control with regard to the imports but he would favour their application for the loan—which application I understand was turned down by business people after an inquiry into the application. The Minister favoured their application though he would not agree to all that they wanted. That was the guardianship by the Minister of the consumers. What was in the background at that time was no doubt the Sea Fisheries Association, but he had thought of them as the people who controlled the imports. However, the Dublin Trawling Company started in 1938 supported by the Minister.

Ever since his sanction of that trawling company there has been nothing but a wail in the public Press that these people have entirely monopolised the fishing industry. The Minister examined the books of the trawling company in a futile sort of way. He said that except for two weeks in 1939 the company had not, since their start in 1938 been able to make a profit. Even with the monopoly around the coast they had never been able to make a profit except in two weeks. What is the reaction to that on the public? These "keen businesslike people" were given a complete monopoly of the business, and even with that monopoly they have not been able to make a profit except for two weeks since September, 1938. There is the situation revealed with regard to these keen business men operating this business. One of the Minister's tests was that none of the critics had offered to supply a boat. But the fact is that there were people who offered to supply boats, and the Minister admitted that afterwards. In August, 1938, the Minister said he had adopted a certain policy with regard to trawling and there was room for only one trawling company, and then he used these words "as long as the existing company operated to his satisfaction". I take that as a pat on the back for the Dublin Trawling Company. But the Minister had only a couple of months' experience of them at the time that he used these words. Yet he was content to say that they were operating to his satisfaction. The Minister said they started in 1938. Would he say what month in 1938 they had started? Was it earlier than August?

Dr. Ryan

In September, 1938.

Mr. McGilligan

So this is a letter written a month in advance of September, 1938—actually before the Dublin Trawling Company had gone into operation at all, and the statement is there that they were operating to his satisfaction. In a letter written a month in advance of their start the Minister says he is satisfied with the way they were operating. The Minister had threatened in a way in which he was not authorised by the Dáil to do. He had not asked the Dáil for these powers and he had never indicated to the Dáil that he would ask for them. What he said was:

"If you purchase two or three trawlers I shall use any powers I have to stop your using them, and if these powers are not sufficient I shall ask the Dáil when it meets for additional powers. If you should proceed in spite of this warning I shall not feel obliged to offer you any compensation for any loss you may suffer eventually if you are put out of business by legislation."

In August, 1938, before the Dublin Trawling Company had got going, before the Minister had any experience of what they could do, he threatens the use of any powers he has against these people and, if he has not the necessary powers, he says he will ask the Dáil for such powers as will put them out of business and will refuse to give them compensation if put out of business by legislation. That was at a time when the Minister had no specific authority from the Dáil. He was saying, in effect, to these people: "You know I have a majority in the Dáil and I will get that majority to put you out of business. If you buy two or three trawlers, I will put you out of business and you will not get a penny piece compensation in respect of these trawlers." A little later the Minister wrote to these people and he told them that he thought his correspondents should get into touch with the Dublin Trawling Company. He had, he said, "no reason to suppose that the Dublin Trawling Company would be averse to disposing of some of their shares to persons like yourself with a considerable stake in the fishing business." There is the situation. These are, according to the Minister, keen and businesslike people and to his correspondents he says: "You are at the mercy of the Dublin Trawling Company. Go and ask them to give you shares in the company and they will take you in."

Let us consider an example. I have already spoken of the analogy in connection with flour milling. Joseph Rank and Company established themselves in this country and the Minister swept himself into office by the declaration that they would have less to do when he got in than they had before. Later, we discovered that they had far more to do than before the Minister had come into office and they proposed to off-load part of what they bought in Limerick. They retained majority control of the company although they sold the majority of shares. They off-loaded on the Irish people a sufficient number of shares to recoup themselves for every penny they spent on the purchase of whatever Irish concerns they purchased. With every penny got back in that way, they retained, with a minority share-holding, control of the flour-milling industry in this country. With that example before him, the Minister says to these people: "Go and take shares in the Dublin Trawling Company." If these people were keen and businesslike men who wanted the home market preserved for themselves and not a solitary piece of fish landed here without their consent, the Minister knows that anybody who tried to get into that concern at that time, when their prospects seemed to be very fair, was going to be blackmailed. That is all he had to offer to two firms who wanted to set up in business and who wanted to show their belief in the future of the fish business by purchasing trawlers. He says to them that he will not allow them to do so, that he will use any powers he has to prevent them and if he has not the necessary powers that he will take them. He says that, in respect of people with a considerable stake in the fishing industry, he has no reason to doubt that the Dublin Trawling Company would be averse to taking them in. These people did not do as suggested.

The matter went on. Things went from bad to worse. Prices rose and there was a completely inadequate supply of fish. We arrive at the Autumn of 1939. Deputy Byrne has referred to what I might describe as a well-known fact. I do not know whether the Minister has any information or whether he will deny the statement current that the Dublin Trawling Company on a very recent date diverted to an English port two boat loads of fish which they sold at a considerably lower price than was being got for fish here—that three boatloads of fish were sold at less money than they would have brought had they been sold here and even suffered some reduction of price. That is a well-known device of monopolists. Better throw fish into the sea in certain circumstances, which I understand, these people have done, than bring them into a particular market. Better to ensure that prices will be kept high over a considerable period than, in order to get a bit extra profit in a particular week, bring in a sufficiency of fish to bring the prices down. Again, these are keen businessmen and have long sight. Rather have prices kept up for 18 months, or whatever period the Minister's convenience will allow it to go on, than have a situation develop by which that prospect will be endangered. Better sell one boatload at an exorbitant price and two boatloads at Fleetwood or somewhere else than bring down the price here. That has been stated and it has been stated also that fish were dumped into the sea to keep the price up.

The Minister was not satisfied with their performance. The correspondent from whom I am quoting all the time got letter from the Minister on the 16th October, 1939 I want the phrase in this letter related to the Minister's statement that he examined their books, and that in two weeks in September they made money and that during the rest of the time they were running at a loss. The evidence he gives of that and of his belief in that is their ceasing to hire five trawlers which they previously had hired. On 16th October, the Minister's secretary tells these people that the Minister

"recently caused the directors of the Dublin Trawling Company to be notified that, while adhering to his previously expressed view that, in normal circumstances, there is room for the economic operation within this country of only one well-managed and properly-equipped deep-sea trawling company, he must insist upon the company's fleet being sufficiently expanded by the acquisition of additional trawlers, to cope with the emergency conditions now prevailing."

In October, the Secretary to the Minister is writing to insist on an expansion of the fleet. Now, the Minister tells us that he knew they were ceasing to hire five trawlers which they previously had hired. That letter, insisting on an expansion of the fleet, is a clear indication that he was not satisfied with the number of boats they had or the number of fish they were bringing in. The letter goes on:—

"The directors readily undertook to comply with the Minister's requirements and have since furnished documentary evidence that they are taking the necessary measures to that end. Such being the position, the Minister will wait for a reasonable time longer to enable them fully to implement their promise before agreeing to have examined the alternative proposals submitted by you and other persons interested in the wholesale side of the fish trade."

There is that letter in October in which the Minister caused to be made known to the directors of the Dublin Trawling Company his disappointment with what they have done, a request that they expand their fleet and the definite statement, with documentary evidence, that the directors have undertaken to comply with the Minister's demand. I do not believe that a month passed from 1938 in which the Minister had not on an average two letters from one firm pointing out the conditions prevailing in the fish market and pointing out that two things were interlocked—the scarcity of fish and increased prices. In all that time, the Minister simply held fast by this idea that there was to be one company and one company only. On 11th January, 1940, the Minister's Secretary writes:

"The whole question of supply and demand in the Dublin Fish Market is having careful consideration at the moment, and, from the information available to him on the subject, the Minister gathers that there is no prospect of any shortage in supplies this week."

He got down to the point of limiting his prophecies to a particular week but, unfortunately, that particular prophecy was not borne out.

I should mention, for the sake of the joke that ought to attend any reference to the Constitution, that this correspondent wrote and suggested that monopoly conditions were not warranted by the Constitution and he referred to that glorious Article of the Constitution which guarantees private property in external goods and to the Article in which the State guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath and inherit property. I must say, however, that, quite rightly, the Minister's sneer at any reference to the Constitution as guaranteeing anything as an essential commodity in that sense has opened our eyes as to what it means. The company is two or three years old. It has grown up since, and the Minister has grown up since, but certainly there is no letter that shows any element of reality except the one that points out that, so far as Constitutional matters are concerned, the application of the Constitution to the matter of selling fish was all nonsense or that there was anything in connection with the question of private property. The Minister did strain his particular type of humour in the matter of referring to any type of trawler, bringing in fish, as an essential commodity. However, that was the Minister's elephantine way of sneering at the reference to the Constitution. It does not matter, however, how he expresses himself, or what particular type of humour he indulges in, the facts are as I have stated. There is the situation. The situation is that there is to be one company and one company only.

The Minister, evidently, decides on having one company only because he is afraid of wasteful competition—and then, in the background of that, we have something to the effect that it might be harmful to the community to have more than one company operating. He therefore sets up the Dublin Trawling Company and says to other companies, in effect: "If you dare to set up in competition with this company, I will wipe you out; you will be given no compensation for any expenditure that you may incur by way of purchase of trawlers, and if you want to go into the business of trawling, I have set up the Dublin Trawling Company as the monopolists in this business and I have guaranteed them, and if you wish to go in for this business the only thing for you to do is to go into partnership with these people". The Minister, then, sets up this company as monopolists, and they do not give satisfaction to the public and, according to the Minister's letter, they do not give satisfaction even to him, but now, apparently, he is insisting on the Dublin Trawling Company getting a new fleet, and he tells us to-day that it was only for two or three weeks that they had been able to make a profit and that they were so affected by that —he does not say that he agrees with it—that they had to cease hiring five of the trawlers they previously had. The Minister admitted to me that they were going to continue with a fleet of four trawlers, and he says that that is good enough.

Now, the situation, as it affects the whole community, ought to be looked into. I have here a series of prices, giving comparisons as between Dublin, on the one hand, and Grimsby and Billingsgate on the other hand. It would be too tedious to read out the whole list, but I think that Deputy Byrne's statement that the price of fish here is up by about 200 per cent. is right, and the figures I have here, in my opinion, will bear that out. The figures I have here refer to February 20th, 21st and 22nd, 1940, and I can give also the Dublin prices for the 21st and 22nd February, 1938, and there are amazing differences. For instance, the price of cod per stone on the 20th February, 1940, at Dublin, was from 5/6 to 8/6; at Billingsgate from 3/- to 6/-, and at Grimsby from 4/- to 6/-. The price of plaice on the same date at Dublin was from 10/6 to 14/-, whereas at Billingsgate it was from 7/- to 16/-, and at Grimsby from 6/- to 12/-. It will be noted that at Billingsgate the price went up as far as 16/-. This is all for February 20th. The price of haddock at Dublin on that date was from 9/- to 11/- per stone, and at Billingsgate from 4/- to 9/-. Black soles, per pound, were from 1/3 to 1/9 in Dublin, and from 8d. to 1/2 at Billingsgate. No figures are given for Grimsby on that date. The price of turbot at Dublin was from 1/4 to 1/8 per pound, and 1/- at Billingsgate.

On February 21st, 1940, the price of plaice at Dublin was from 12/- to 16/6 per stone, at Billingsgate from 8/- to 14/- per stone, and at Grimsby from 9/- to 12/-; cod was from 5/- to 8/6 at Dublin, and from 3/- to 6/- at Billingsgate, and so on. On February 22nd, the range was still higher. On that date the price of plaice per stone was from 13/- to 18/- at Dublin and from 8/- to 15/- at Billingsgate; the price of cod was from 7/- to 10/6 in Dublin and from 4/- to 7/- in Billingsgate; hake was from 8/6 to 14/6 in Dublin and from 10/- to 13/- in Billingsgate; whiting was from 4/- to 11/- in Dublin, and from 1/6 to 4/- at Billingsgate; blacksoles were from 1/3 to 1/8 at Dublin, and from 6d. to 1/1 at Billingsgate; turbot was from 1/5 to 1/9 at Dublin and from 9d. to 1/- at Billingsgate; brill, per lb., was from 1/4 to 1/5 at Dublin, and from 7d. to 9d. at Billingsgate. No prices were quoted for Grimsby. A most amazing thing is that on February 22nd, 1940, the price of whiting in Dublin ranged from 4/- to 11/- per lb., and in Billingsgate from 1/6 to 4/-. How that discrepancy can be explained I do not know. Cod, on the 22nd February, was from 7/- to 10/6 in Dublin, and from 4/- to 7/- in Billingsgate, and plaice, as I have said, was from 13/- to 18/- in Dublin, and from 8/- to 15/- in Billingsgate.

If these are the prices, and if a company that has been given a complete monopoly can only make profits for two weeks since the time they started to do business—which was somewhere about June, 1938, as the Minister, I think, said,—surely such a situation requires something more than the Minister merely ducking down into books and saying that these people should be allowed to dispense with the hire of five trawlers which they previously employed. That is the clear record from the prices I have given. The Minister has told us about the history of these people. That is the history as he has given it to us, and if this were a thing that had happened in 1932 or 1933 there might be some excuse for the Minister, but now, when he has had the example of the bacon curers—also keen businessmen, and men who feathered their nests while driving bacon away from the breakfast tables of our people—I think that he should have been more vigilant with regard to the giving of any new monopoly. Evidently, he has wandered into this thing on the same principle, which seems to be axiomatic with him, that it is not possible to have more than one trawling company operating here. According to him, if you had more than one company operating, it would lead to wasteful expenditure and to a duplication of overhead expenses, but supposing that you had more than one company operating here—even if it did lead to a wasteful type of overhead expenses—could the public fare any worse than they have fared, if that list of prices that I have read out is accurate and representative? I got the prices for various dates and have taken the three or four dates nearest to the periods concerned. These figures were given to me in good faith and I am told that these prices represent the prices that ruled at the time. There may be certain discrepancies that have to be considered in connection with the sale of fish over a long period. I am told also, when I am comparing here the Dublin prices with the Grimsby and Billingsgate prices, that I am not doing the Irish public justice because there are certain extra costs which fall upon the men who fish and land their catches for sale at Billingsgate or Grimsby which do not fall in the case of the fish that are brought in here.

The Dublin Trawling Company, in addition to having raised the prices— even though the Minister says they are only able to make profits intermittently —have certain other allegations made against them. The Minister must have heard that there are certain other allegations made against them. The first thing that the Dublin Trawling Company did when they got control was to fix a price for the fish that they were going to sell. They put on a fixed price. It was the first time in the history of the fish business that such a thing as a fixed price was known. They put it on in the middle of 1938, and if they did not get the fixed price they dumped the fish back into the sea. By reason of doing that they have retained the fixity of price which they set out to ensure for themselves. Hundreds of fish have been dumped into the sea in the 18 months that have passed. It has been a constant practice of theirs.

They have also shipped fish to England. There was a most notable example in this connection because it attracted the public attention here and was referred to at a public meeting. Out of three boat loads bound for this country, they diverted two to Fleetwood and sold the fish at a loss over there. They certainly sold them at a loss if you make a comparison with what they could get for the fish here, selling the whole lot. Possibly the impact of the two boat loads would have brought down their own fixed prices in the Dublin market, but it is part of the monopoly game to suffer a loss by some uneconomic distribution of fish—it is a useful thing to do that, if you are long-sighted enough, in order to keep up the prices over a long period. They have done that and there has not been a word of denial in the Press in relation to that allegation of the diversion of fish by the company and the Press has been resounding with it ever since it happened.

It was during the week ending February 17th that that dumping was done. As was indicated at the Mansion House the other night, and as can be established by figures, the operation of this company has caused very serious unemployment, not merely directly arising through the operations of the company, but through the retailers, the transport companies and the people who make boxes, and the effect has been to lower considerably the tolls paid in the Dublin market. One of the results of the competition, the obvious result that had to occur, can be seen in the case of one wholesaler who has been in the business in a prominent way for a generation and whose father was in it before he succeeded to it. The average wages he used to pay ran to £60 a week and, during the Lenten season, that figure was much more than doubled. At the moment, although this is the season of Lent, he is paying less than £40—something in the region of £35 a week. His outgoings to his employees—I am speaking now of the Lenten season—have dropped from £150 a week to £35. Consider the impact of that on the people who used to get £150 a week distributed amongst them. Some of them are now getting only £35 between them. You have only to mention the figure and any person with imaginative scope will realise what the effect of that is.

The last turn this whole matter has taken has been the advent of the Sea Fisheries Association. I have asked the Minister under what article can the Sea Fisheries Association import fish and he referred me to the omnibus paragraph at the end:—

"Generally to engage in any business or transaction, or to promote or facilitate any arrangements, measures, or transactions which may seem to the society directly or indirectly conducive to the development of the sea fisheries of Saorstát Eireann or to the interests or convenience of its members or in pursuance thereof and to undertake such other functions and to do all things which may be necessary or expedient from time to time for accomplishing the aforesaid objects or any of them."

I should like to have the attention of the Minister's legal adviser drawn to the fact that that general clause is referred to the specific articles that precede it. I think the Minister will agree with me that there is not an article in the specific articles set out there in which the word "import" is used. I think I am right in that— there is not an article in which the word "import" is used or is even hinted at; there is not an article which would indicate that they were ever going to go into the importation of fish.

The Minister told me that previously the society engaged in trawling and the Minister pretended to me that they were governed by the same omnibus article. There is a specific article which says that they are allowed to carry on or engage in sea-fishing. Perhaps that would be specific enough to cover trawling. That is contained in the Objects of Society, clause 4, paragraph (f). It does not matter very much whether they are doing something which may be a little bit illegal —an emergency order would soon cure all that—but they have engaged in the importation of fish, and what is the result? The wholesale fish merchants of Dublin are set in competition with the Sea Fisheries Association. They get licences for very small quantities of fish, and even for these small quantities they are subject to certain conditions. They have to kipper a particular type of fish they get in or else sell outside the City of Dublin. Recently a new move was made, that they would buy from the Sea Fisheries Association, and when they present themselves they find they are buying in competition with the retailers who want to be the wholesalers' customers. They are told that they will get a cut price, or some reduction in the price as compared with what their own customers get from the Sea Fisheries Association, if they sell outside the Dublin area.

That is the position in regard to people who have made their business in the Dublin area and who would have to close down practically 50 per cent. of their activities if they are not allowed to trade in the Dublin area. This Government-owned body which, I suggest, has no real power to engage in importation, does actually import, and they address themselves to the wholesale people and say: "You can buy from us; come down and we will sell to you", and they find that the retailers are getting the fish at exactly the same price as the wholesalers, and they certainly cannot do business on those terms. There is this specious offer made to them: "We will give it to you at a low price; we will give you certain fish that we have imported, but you will sell outside Dublin." They have no machinery for selling outside Dublin; they have made their trade inside the Dublin area.

I frankly confess an embarrassment and anxiety about all this. I cannot understand what the Minister is driving at. I can imagine the Minister saying: "I worked a monopoly in the fishing business. I recognised that I was going to impose hardship on certain people, that I was going to destroy people in the business who had a connection, who established goodwill for themselves, were getting intermittent profits and were engaged in the ordinary development of the business. I realised I was going to defeat these people, put them out of their occupations; that it would mean losing them their property, doing a thing which amounted to a confiscation of the business of these people, but I felt I could do it and not give them a penny piece of compensation because it was in the public interest to do so". Then I could imagine the Minister waiting for some period until the monopolist crowd got on their feet and he would say: "`There are casualties, people who fell by the way, but I am protected by the article of the Constitution which speaks about the common good, and here is the common good". But the Minister does not refer to the common good; he does not give one solitary phrase or figure to indicate that the population are getting either more fish or cheaper fish than they got before. If the figures I have given represent in any way the position, the populace here are suffering from two ill-effects, ill-effects always to be associated with an uncontrolled and inefficient monopoly. There is a scarcity of the article required and, the scarcity being artificially created, the prices range high.

I think it is pretty well known that one of the reasons for the relaxation of the Lenten regulations in this country —I admit that disease and sickness had something to do with it as well—was definitely and distinctly the trouble in the fish industry: the fact that fish could not be procured and was not procurable at prices that the masses of the population could pay. As I have said, I could understand the Minister making the case and saying: "There is a monopoly group. You have to have a harsh, unrelenting heart in establishing a monopoly in the country, and I have my heart steeled against those people and will simply wipe them out. I will do that in a stern and efficient way. I will establish a company, and that company will sell fish in such a way that the populace can get very much better terms than they are getting under the monopoly." But the result has been entirely the opposite. The Minister's statement proves that this company, which was put in a monopoly position and which has been charging outrageous prices, has only been able to make profits for two weeks, and these, I suppose were the two bad emergency weeks. I would like to have a look at the prices that ranged over the two weeks in which they made profits. This group of monopolists has proved itself so inefficient that it cannot supply the public with fish, and cannot even make profits for itself. That to my mind condemns the whole scheme.

The Minister, I think, has gone out of his way to deal very harshly with people who were in this business for years. I wonder if he is going to make the case, if it can be made, that the people who were engaged in the wholesale distribution of fish in the country were making enormous profits, whether there was anything in the nature of a ring and whether they had kept up prices at an exorbitant level. If the Minister is going to make that case, I want to warn him that in doing so he will be making a still heavier case against the present group of monopolists, because any comparison that is made as regard prices will not show up these monopolists of his in a very good light. I should like to know what case can be made against depriving certain people of their livelihood to justify these people in the sea fisheries group bringing in fish to the country and selling it indiscriminately to wholesalers and retailers. Private enterprise is guaranteed by the Constitution, but I put it to the Minister that people hereafter will be very loth to embark on any enterprise if, at any moment, a Minister can come along and say: "I am going to hand over the whole of this business to one group and not allow you people to engage in it any further".

I do not appreciate what the necessity for the special insurance set out in the Estimate is. As I came into the House I did hear the Minister say something about the unique position of this particular company. But if this is some further blister that is to be put on the populace because of the fact that there is a monopoly operating, then of course it condemns this small Estimate right away. I am assuming that if there are more trawlers sailing the seas possibly there may have to be heavier insurance, and that the Minister has to make heavier grants-in-aid. I object strongly to any further public money being given to this company until there is a complete overhaul of it. It is scandalous the way the populace are being treated. I object to the whole scheme that the Minister has adopted, and think that he might have learned something from the experience that he has had in regard to the establishment of monopolies in the case of other commodities.

Mr. McMenamin

The debate on this Estimate so far has centred around the City of Dublin and the operations of this company in the city. The whole thing is really tragic because what it really amounts to is the destruction of the fishing industry of the country. The allegations made with regard to the operations of this trawling company by Deputy McGilligan may or may not be true. What struck me about this company at the time it was formed was this: that I thought it rather strange that a coal merchant, with an address in Pearse Street, should be made a director of it, and that another man with an address in Howth, also connected with the coal trade, should be another director. It is rather strange that people in the coal trade should be made directors of a fishing company. The new company was to have control not only of the fishing industry, but of the marketing of fish. In those circumstances it surely was essential that the men put in charge of the new industry should know it outside in, if the industry was ever to be put on its feet. We know what the position is to-day. Deputy McGilligan has gone over the whole business and raked it fore and aft. The psychological position has been created that nobody in this country to-day will buy fish. It is, therefore, no wonder that this company is not making money. Owing to the prices prevailing for fish during the last couple of months nobody, as I have said, is buying fish. Deputy McGilligan gave the current market quotations and made a comparison between the prices prevailing here and elsewhere. The prices charged here for the rougher kinds of fish are not in the official quotations at all. It is only the choicer cuts that are quoted. But we all know that the prices charged here for the rougher kinds of fish have been so outrageous that the poor cannot buy fish.

In the week ending February 17th two trawlers were sent from Dublin to Fleetwood, and the remarkable fact that emerges is this: that the fish they landed there was sold at half the price that fish, taken by the same trawlers, was being sold at in Dublin. The prices charged in Dublin were so high that the people here could not afford to buy fish at all. If Deputies, when walking through the city, look at the shop windows they will see herrings, about the length of a lead pencil, selling at 3d. each. Take that particular week, ending the 17th February, when all the fish was sent to Fleetwood and dumped there at half price, for no other purpose—they can make any excuse they like—but to keep up the price here. People could not buy fish here. Fish went up about a shilling a pound in one week. Here were the prices: at Billingsgate plaice was from 7/- to 16/- per stone; at Dublin it was from 10/- to 14/- per stone. On February 21st—these were the relevant dates— we found around this date fish was sent from here and dumped in England. On the 21st February, that is, four days after two boat loads were sent from here to Fleetwood, plaice in Dublin was from 12/- to 16/- a stone; at Billingsgate it was from 8/- to 14/- a stone.

I really cannot understand the mentality of the Minister who has the audacity to come into this House and ask for money from the public to continue that performance. Not only is he killing that company—that company is killed; it has damned itself, and rightly so—but he is going to kill the entire fishing industry in this country. That is bound to be one of the results. Contemporaneously, as far as the poor of the city are concerned, the price of eggs went up. One was interested in speculating how these people live. What do they eat on Fridays, or on Wednesdays and Fridays, and on fast days. Eggs went up to 2/6 a dozen; the price even of rough fish was prohibitive; the price was so high that they could not buy a herring. Even, as I said before, a little herring about the length of a lead pencil was 3d. Take the average poor house, with six, seven or eight children, and herrings at 3d. each and eggs at 2/6 a dozen. What were those people living on? What had they got for dinner, what had they got for breakfast, tea or supper? Did they use potatoes for dinner, and if they did what did they take along with them? They could not take flesh meat and the price of fish was prohibitive.

Yet, in the face of that, the Minister— knowing that there is a storm about his head—comes in and gives us this rigmarole here to-day. That will not do. Surely, in 1938, when he created this monopoly, he had seen enough of monopolies in this country, even if he had not known anything about them before that. As a matter of fact, it may be that the wiping out of this company would do some serious damage to somebody now or to a number of people, but really the proper thing to do is to wipe it out at one stroke instead of coming in here trying to bolster it up.

The Sea Fisheries Association, in my opinion, should do this; I do not see any reason why they could not tackle this job. Seeing that the Sea Fisheries Association existed, I cannot appreciate why a monopoly was given to this trawling company. Surely, the effect of the operations of the trawling company was going to cut across and cut the ground from under the Sea Fisheries Association and the development of sea fishing generally. The general effect of it is that the fishermen have this against them, that the public are put off fish owing to the operations of this trawling company. What has happened here in Dublin? In the face of this material that Deputy McGilligan has given us—in my opinion, the Minister cannot refute it, as it has been verified—the Minister cannot get out of it.

I am curious to know what case the Minister is going to make in asking for this money. There are men prepared to buy trawlers, that is, small boats and trawlers at least capable of inshore fishing, out of their own money, on their own capital. I have known cases where they have bought the boats and where they went to a certain fishing station belonging to the Sea Fisheries Association and were prepared to put down the cash to buy the nets. The officials refused to supply nets to these men, insisting that they should be paid for on the instalment system. That has happened in Donegal. People with their own money went to the association's stores to buy nets to get going at once; they were prepared to put down cash for them, yet they could not be supplied out of the stores as the officials would not sell them except on a co-operative basis, on the instalment system. Where on earth could that happen but in some place connected with a Government Department? Does the Minister not see the absurdity of tying this up with the red tape of a Government Department, and how utterly insane it is to ask civil servants to have anything to do with business? A number of our men in Donegal have gone to England, have been working there, and have made some money: they were a sort of half fishermen and half migratory labourers; they made some money there, brought it home and were prepared to buy boats; yet they are met with little difficulties like this. Could not the civil servants be instructed that, when men come with cash to those stores, they should get right away what they require, without any red tape? Unloose this business of all red tape which is making it impossible for it to continue.

The story of people prepared to buy trawlers here and the threat of the Minister that if they bought them he was going to come into this House and take powers to put them out of business is an appalling story. I cannot appreciate how any man of honour could occupy a Ministerial position and come into this House to defend conduct of that kind. Men were prepared to put down their own money, to take a risk as business men, to stake their knowledge and their business capacity on going into this business; yet they are met with the Minister's threat that, if they do, he will come in and use his majority in this House to put them out of business and destroy their capital. To defend what? To defend a company to which he has given a monopoly. He has created that position; then he comes in to justify that and tells us that he did not make profits, that he only made profits for two weeks. How can they run business in that way?

Dr. Ryan

What way?

Mr. McMenamin

His attempts by fictitious action to rush up the price of fish, thinking that people will buy it irrespective of what price it is, show the class of people to whom he gives a monopoly. They have not sufficient intelligence to foresee the result of conduct of that kind. Do they not know that any article in the world is only worth a certain price, that there is only a certain price that the public will pay for anything, including fish. These stupid people, of course, think that they can stick behind the monopoly and that they can put any price they like on fish and that the public will buy it. They are a bit wiser now. I wonder could the Minister give us the average consumption of fish during Lent in the past three or four years in this city, compared with the consumption in the last week or so, or since Lent began this year. He and his monopolies have been tried out and they are losing. I regret that they are losing, I regret that that has taken place, and that he is destroying men in the fishing industry by threatening to come in and put them out of business altogether. It is a tragic story.

We hear a lot about the poor, but in the present condition of things the poor people cannot go out and get some rough fish at a nominal price. Let the Minister go down to the market or to Moore Street and see the prices charged for that class of fish, if it can be got at all. If the company to which he gave a monopoly had not sent two trawlers to Fleetwood loaded with fish, and dumped it there, at least those people could get fish at a reasonable price. The whole thing is a sorry mess of incompetency, and the Minister should be ashamed of it.

Mr. Hickey

I should like to tell the Minister that there is very grave dissatisfaction in the City of Cork about the supplies of fish. Listening to the Minister this morning, one would imagine that there is no cause for complaint. The Minister, I am sure, has had correspondence from the fish merchants in Cork in regard to this matter. I have been asked by those people to direct the Minister's attention to the lack of supplies of fish in Cork, with a view to seeing whether anything could be done about it. The position was so grave recently that public institutions could not get tenders for fish. On one occasion they got some supplies of fish from the fishing trawlers here and had to send it back as they could not eat it. I think it is really necessary that something should be done.

While a case has been made for giving some kind of protection to the people in the fishing industry, I am afraid there ought to be more supervision with regard to supplies. Why not have one of those trawlers fishing in the south to supply the needs of the people in Cork? I agree with what Deputy McMenamin has said; as far as the poor of Cork are concerned, fish is almost a luxury now. The rougher classes of fish cannot be purchased at all by the poor. I think Deputy McMenamin has gone into the whole matter minutely. The fish merchants in Cork have not got the supplies of fish required by the people, and it would be a very good thing if we had a trawler operating in the south to supply the needs of the people there. I hope that in this matter the Minister will do something more than telling us there is no cause for complaint.

Michael Óg McFadden

I think the Minister and the Department have been very lax in the matter of providing protection for our fishermen in Donegal from the depredations of foreign trawlers. On last Sunday, I heard that no less than 26 Fleetwood trawlers were operating in Donegal Bay, in that stretch of water from Glen Head to Achill Head. Those foreign trawlers have observed no boundary or bye-law. They come in to the very strands and sweep away the catches that should go to our own fishermen. It was publicly announced some time ago that the patrol boat, the Muirchu, was undergoing repairs, and, of course, that gave an opportunity to those trawlers to attack Donegal Bay, which is one of the best fishing grounds on our coasts. What I want to know is why the other patrol boat, the Fort Rannoch, was not available to be sent to Donegal. It ought to be sent there in any event, as I understand that the Muirchu is an old boat and not fit to patrol our coasts in bad weather. I trust that the Minister will see that patrols are sent to Donegal as soon as possible in order to give our local fishermen a chance.

Mr. M. Morrissey

I also want to refer to the point mentioned by the previous speaker, that is poaching by foreign trawlers. On the South coast, and particularly on the Waterford coast, we have had continuous poaching by foreign trawlers, in the past three or four weeks. That is a well-known fact. The local fishermen see them day after day coming well within the three-mile limit. They practically sweep the coast at Helvick Head. That has been going on continuously for the last three or four weeks, and I would ask the Minister to see that something is done to stop them. It is really a shocking thing to see those Belgian trawlers coming along and remaining on the fishing grounds for a long period. There is also another matter which is more or less of local interest— it concerns a portion of my constituency—and that is in connection with Helvick Pier. The Minister will have special interest in it because it is being used by a number of the Association boats, and the state of that Pier has become a danger to the crews and to the boats themselves. For a number of years it has been gradually silting, and there is now a sandbank there which makes it very difficult for the boats to get in and out. I think this matter has already been brought to the attention of the Department, and I should like very much if the Minister would see that it is attended to as quickly as possible for the safety of the Association boats, and other boats, and for the safety of the crews.

Mr. Dillon

I wonder if Deputy Brady has been listening to his colleague, Deputy Morrissey. After eight years of Fianna Fáil administration, we have Deputy Morrissey telling the Government that it is nearly time they chased the foreign trawlers out of Irish waters. Does Deputy Brady remember his eloquent speeches in West Donegal eight years ago, telling the people that when Mr. de Valera came into office those trawlers would be swept out of our territorial waters in a fortnight? But they are still prowling around.

Mr. B. Brady

Deputy Brady is still in West Donegal, and Deputy Dillon is in Monaghan.

Mr. Dillon

I would invite the Deputy to reflect on his colleague's speech. Sir, there are two bodies of persons that I think require special consideration in this matter, in addition to the wholesale fishmongers and the consumers of fish, and they are the inshore fishermen——

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy is the first to mention them.

Mr. Dillon

——and the poor of this city and of Cork who sell fish on the streets. I have every sympathy and every solicitude for the unemployed who are constrained to accept unemployment assistance, but I have sympathy, solicitude and profound respect for the mother of a family who throws her shawl over her head and goes out and stands at the corner of Moore Street or Summerhill and earns the keep of her household by selling fish. It is the likes of them, small people who do not know where to turn when adversity overwhelms them, that are crushed by follies such as the Minister for Agriculture is making himself responsible for in this House now. Take a poor woman who is selling fish on the streets of Dublin, and making a decent livelihood out of it; she suddenly finds that when she goes to the fish market to get her supplies, the price of the fish she is in the habit of handling has gone so high that none of her habitual customers will be able to buy it from her. The first effect of that is that she has to bring from the market a smaller basket than she was in the habit of bringing in the past, until ultimately the day comes when she feels there are not any supplies on the market which will enable her to turn an honest penny, and she goes home with no income. She does not know what the cause of that is; she cannot know, because it is a complex problem. She simply becomes one of those who were moderately comfortable and are now destitute, one of the nameless eggs that the Prime Minister once said he would have to break if omelettes were to be made.

I do not believe that this House or any other Government institution is entitled to break human eggs in order to make political omelettes. I regard the livelihood of those people as being as important as the livelihood of anybody in this House. I do not want to hold myself out as a kind of exclusive protector of the poor. I am perfectly certain the Minister for Supplies, who was born and reared in the middle of this city, is just as solicitous for the poor of Dublin as I am, but what I do charge him and his colleagues with is this: that when they get obsessed with the desire to embark on some wild experiment similar to this trawling experiment they do not look forward to the individual suffering that they are going to cause to small people, and they have got a kind of idea that, whatever happens, the wagon must roll on, and if certain persons fall beneath the wheels that is just too bad. I differ from that whole philosophy. I think the lives of individuals, particularly defenceless individuals, are a special charge on every Deputy in this House, and grandiose schemes of this kind should not be embarked upon if they involve the ruin of people who have been struggling, and struggling successfully, by their own enterprise, in keeping destitution from their doors. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that numbers of these unfortunate women who have been earning decent livelihoods have been driven out of business, and I do not think there is a Deputy in this House, when that matter is brought home to his mind, who does not share my sympathy for them and my regret that they have been allowed to lose their livelihood without anybody foreseeing the hardship that was going to be thrust upon them.

Now we come to the inshore fishermen. I represented these men for a good while in Dáil Eireann, as Deputy Brady reminded me a few moments ago, and I am proud to think they were amongst those who first returned me to this House. A harder working body of men there was not in this country and their inshore fishing was an essential part of the economy of the west coast of this country. The alternative to their enjoying the amenities of that fishing is that they should go and work in the bothies of Scotland. If they cannot make a small income from fishing to supplement the income of their homes they must go and earn it in Scotland or perish on the holdings they have got. I do not understand what the Minister means when he says that these men are being helped by the promotion of the trawler scheme. So far as I am aware, the trawlers operated by the Dublin Ice and Trawling Company are manned as to 90 per cent. by English men. I do not believe there are 10 per cent. of Irishmen amongst the crews of these trawlers. To tell you the honest truth, I do not regret that. Trawling is an occupation I would not care to inflict on any body of Irishmen. Did the Minister ever meet the able-bodied seamen, if such you can describe them, who man trawlers? It is a most extraordinary life. They are an extraordinary type of people. I want to distinguish most carefully between the small fishing village population in England and this country and the type of persons drawn from Grimsby, Fleetwood and Hull who man the deep-sea trawlers. They are a most extraordinary type of men, I would say almost primitive, and as unlike the type of persons who engage in fishing in this country as chalk is from cheese. I do not think any material consideration would reward us for converting our fishermen into the type of persons who would successfully pursue the trawling craft. I do not want to abuse or belittle any body of men, but such trawler men as I have met are not the type I would like to see inhabiting the West of Ireland or any other part of this country. Maybe it is that the work is so hard and so arduous it is only that type of men who can survive it. I do not know, but that is the fact.

The inshore fishermen never had any-think to do with trawling. On the contrary, any inshore fisherman I have talked to has looked upon the trawler as the bane and affliction of his life. The only familiarity he had with trawlers was that they would come in and tear up the bottom of the fishing ground where he was in the habit of getting his fish and leave nothing after them and when they had torn the bottom of the feeding ground of the fish he used to catch they used to disappear out into the deep waters again and fish in seas where he was quite unable to go. But they would never content themselves with staying in these deep waters. Whenever it suited them to come into the fishing banks which were accessible to the inshore fishermen, they would come in, destroy them and then clear off.

I know that what has happened in this case is that the Minister has allowed himself to be bewildered by a scheme which stood on two legs each of which was unstable. He was tempted by the chimera of self-sufficiency. We would become self-sufficient in fish. God knows, one would think that by this time he had learned the absurdity of that ballyhoo. Anyone who has the most simple knowledge of the fishing industry knows that with the kind of market we have here in Ireland it is absolutely impossible to dispose of a trawler's catch in Ireland. You cannot dispose of a deep-sea trawler's miscellaneous catch if you have not got a centre like Grimsby and Fleetwood where there are buyers for every conceivable type of fish you can rake up from the sea bottom. I do not suppose that if you brought a trawler's catch into Dublin you would get anybody to buy more than 60 per cent. of the catch at any price. Forty per cent. of the catch would be of a miscellaneous character for which there is no market in Ireland at any price.

Dr. Ryan

What happened to it?

Mr. Dillon

I suppose you turned it into fish meal. What did you do with it?

Dr. Ryan

It was all sold.

Mr. Dillon

To whom? Who bought the lower grades of fish that are not ordinarily consumed in this country?

Dr. Ryan

The hawkers you are speaking about—the poor women of the barrows.

Mr. Dillon

I am not setting myself up to be an expert on trawler fishing. I am not. It would not be reasonable to suggest that I was. I do not think the Minister is either and I think that when the Minister says what he has just said to me it shows he is not an expert. But, I have been told by trawlermen that when they bring in their catch, in addition to the various varieties of fish to which Deputy McGilligan has referred, such as plaice, cod, hake, whiting, haddock, sole, turbot and brill, there are varieties of skate and rough fish which, I think, in England are largely used in the fish and chip shops, where there is an immense trade for fish and chips, and for certain industrial purposes like conversion into fish meal and fish manure, and that there is no analogous demand in this country for the same type of fish. In England there is a demand at a reasonable economic price for the bulk of the rough fish but here almost all the rough fish has to be thrown away at rubbish prices. That being so, whatever induced us to go into this trawling business—there was another way of dealing with the whole matter which I have pressed on the Minister time and again—unless we were bewildered by the desire to stand on this decrepit leg of self-sufficiency? The other leg was that we wanted to preserve the inshore fishing industry as a social amenity for the people who live on our western seaboard. That is a sound plan.

I think the preservation of that social amenity and economic necessity would be worth the expenditure of substantial sums from the national Exchequer. All you had to do to preserve that was to say to the inshore fishermen: "Go out and catch fish and whatever you catch the Sea Fisheries Association will buy it from you." I do not deny that if the Sea Fisheries Association had to buy the entire catch from every inshore fisherman, the disposal of it would have presented a problem, but if the Minister had come before us and said: "I went down to these people because I wanted to keep them fishing, and I said to them `I will take all your fish at an economic price' "—naming the price as it has been named here—"and in doing that, I spent a large sum of money, but when I came to obtain my appropriation-in-aid by selling the fish, I found I could not get as much for it as I paid for it, and I gave some of it away to the poor and, as a result, I want the House to pass an Estimate to recoup me for the losses I have met in disposing of the inshore fishermen's catches," there is not a Deputy in this House who would have objected to giving it to him. On the contrary, we would have congratulated him on having gone down and cut the Gordian knot.

That is the only problem there was. The only problem that beset the inshore fisherman was that when he went out and brought in his catch, there was nobody to buy it and he had to throw it into the sea or let it rot on the pier. Some of it could have been disposed of in provincial towns, or in cities such as Cork and Limerick. Some of it could have been given away and let the Exchequer pay for it. I am prepared to say, on behalf of our Party, that we would have regarded that as a good bargain because ultimately we could have increased the inshore fishermen's supply to such a point that we could have established a regular trade for it and have suffered comparatively little, if any, loss in disposing of it. There is an immense potential market for fishing in rural Ireland, if it were exploited. I doubt if in its initial stages it is an economic market, but even if, in fact, the Minister would have suffered loss in doing that job, the loss he would have suffered, would be very small compared with the losses the community have suffered as a result of this insane scheme.

I want the Minister specifically to tell us who do, in fact, man the trawlers of this company. Are they Irishmen or are they almost all Englishmen? I want to ask the Minister who is benefiting by this scheme? I want to ask the Minister has he considered the hardships suffered by the small retail fish dealer in this city and in Cork? I want to ask him if he will consider now winding up this scheme and installing in its place something on the lines I have suggested to induce inshore fishermen to resume the practice of their inshore fishing.

I think the Minister should also give us some information on this point. I know that at the beginning of the war there was some question as to whether we could get supplies of fish from Great Britain. I know that efforts were made to get these supplies and I understand that it was indicated to us that those who had been in the habit of getting fish at the British ports would continue to get their supplies or a percentage of them. Now, the operation of this trawler scheme has resulted in breaking our trade connections with Grimsby, Fleetwood and Hull. It may be that we are going to find ourselves in the awkward position of having no trade connections of a wholesale character with these ports. The Minister, I think, should explain that to us fully and give us a full review of what the situation is in regard to that matter. This in conclusion: I do not know whether the Minister has realised the extent to which the price of fish has gone up. Deputy McGilligan has given some figures here as to prices in Dublin and in Britain. I want to give the Minister a comparison of what finnan haddock costs now and what it cost 12 months ago. Tenpence a lb. was the retail price of finnan haddock in rural Ireland before the present war; 1/8 is now the retail price of finnan haddock. Let us not suggest for a moment that that rise in prices is due exclusively to the operations of the trawler company. The impact of war conditions and difficulties would have contributed to that price increase had no trawler company existed here at all but I think the Minister will agree that an increase of 100 per cent. is substantially in excess of any increase we might have expected in prices albeit we did anticipate that the war emergency would have caused some rise in prices.

Mr. Norton

The most remarkable feature of the whole problem of fish supplies and prices is the unanimity that exists to-day between elements amongst whom friction might be expected to arise in other circumstances. We have to-day consumers, workers and fish merchants all combined in complaining about the shortage of fish and the high prices which are being charged for fish, about the position which has resulted in disemployment of workers on the one hand, and on the other, the inability of merchants to maintain their business on the previous scale together with the fact that consumers who normally purchased regular supplies are rapidly being compelled to relinquish the purchase of fish. I think the Minister ought to be concerned with the fact that these three elements in the fish industry, the consumer, the worker, and the retail merchant—even the wholesale merchant—have all united in complaining about the operation of the present scheme and of the present fish monopoly.

The merchants complain that they are unable to obtain fish supplies. As Deputy Dillon has rightly pointed out, the small trader who hawks fish from door to door or who sells it in the street, is finding it extremely difficult to make a livelihood in that industry, due to the scarcity of fish on the one hand, and, on the other, the exorbitant price which traders are compelled to pay for fish supplies to-day.

Previously people might be able to get fish in provincial towns on Friday. Fish is now rapidly disappearing from provincial towns. It is extremely difficult to get fish in these towns on Fridays, and if they get it people have to take any kind that is available. Certainly they cannot make a choice. Frequently there is a shortage of supplies. In many cases one is told that there are no supplies to be had on that particular day. Obviously, that is a situation which should excite the attention of the Minister, and some steps should be taken to inquire into it. We are not really a fish eating people, but the religion of the overwhelming majority necessitates having fish on Fridays. It is largely for the Friday fish trade that such fishing industry as we have exists at present, though one would wish for a change in public taste, which would make it possible for the industry not to be for one day but to spread its activities over the week or the year. Such little taste as we have for fish is being rapidly killed by the high price consumers are expected to pay for it.

The fishing industry is giving less employment now than it gave 12 months ago. Friday was known as a fish day in this country, but it is now a fishless day, because people are not able to buy it. Many working-class homes that bought fish on Fridays are now unable to pay the high prices demanded for it. A situation of that kind should induce the Minister to have an inquiry as to the cause of the exorbitant price of fish; the falling off in employment in the industry, the falling off in the income of merchants, and large and small wholesalers who, in the present circumstances, find their former trade very seriously attenuated. We have had experience now of this monopoly. It certainly has not been a success from the standpoint of the consumers or workers in the industry, and the Minister might very well set up a committee, on which both consumers and workers would have representation, to report on the operations of the present monopoly, to endeavour to devise some scheme, which would ensure substantial supplies of fish for our people at reasonable prices, keep small fish traders in existence, and give to the workers reasonable stability in their employment.

Mr. Cosgrave

From the information which is given to Deputies generally by those in the retail fish trade, scarcely any business has been so adversely affected during the last 12 months as this business. The complaint made by fish merchants in Cork arises under various heads. There is first a shortage of supplies; secondly, complaints regarding the quality of the fish supplied, and also complaints regarding prices. Fish is a very important item of household necessity, and it is rather a mistake practically to wipe it off every table. The Minister, having regard to his professional experience, must know the value of fish as food. The main consideration that should command his attention is to maintain the quantity and reasonable prices. Of course, he can, if he wishes, establish any new method to provide fish for the people. The complaint from various sources is that it is not provided. It is not the war has occasioned the present trouble. The first complaint I had in connection with the matter came as far back as last summer, with the introduction of the quota system for imports. Traders in Cork complain that supplies which they were accustomed to get from across the Channel were cut down and that the quantity of the fish they got was not what they usually got.

There is the danger of damaging the tourist traffic by reason of a shortage of supplies. Things got so bad that these traders had actually to communicate with some of their customers, who were responsible for purchasing supsupplies for institutions, that they could not continue to carry out their contracts. In one particular case, where a trader in the previous year supplied 156 stones of plaice, he was only in a position to get 10½ stones from the Sea Fisheries Association or whatever other body supplies fish. In another case where 140 stones of fish was required the merchant was only able to get 20 stones, and there was the further complaint that the quality was such that the fish had to be rejected.

A considerable amount of the fish tendered to this trader was of such quality that he could not hope to sell it. The other complaint was as regards delivery. It is obvious in a trade such as this that the fish must be on slabs on the counters at a particular hour. While there may not be much difference between 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock for most people the hour is of importance to traders. If people who purchase fish at eleven have to be told by traders that they may have some supplies at twelve or half past twelve, it is more than likely that they will not return, and that the trade will be lost. If the Minister wishes to make an experiment of this kind with regard to the Sea Fisheries Association or the trawling company, he should ensure that there is a supply of fish available. That is the main consideration. The experiment should be confined to giving whatever employment is possible in working up a new industry, if he wishes to call it that. The consequences ought not be destructive of this particular trade. Apart from the inconvenience, traders who have made representations to me point out that it is impossible for them to keep their staffs employed if they cannot sell the goods they have been accustomed to sell to the public. In some cases the employees have been in the service of firms for a great number of years. It is a very nice question, which the Minister might examine, to ascertain how far this experiment has occasioned employment, and how far it has been responsible for putting people out of employment. There is one particular case where it was quite apparent from the correspondence I had with them, that the general desire was to help, but very little help was given them during this difficult period. It is obvious that whatever success the Minister anticipated getting by reviving or maintaining this industry, its ultimate success depends absolutely upon delivering the goods to the people at the time they want them.

There is no use telling them that there is a war on at present. They know that. The difficulty existed before the war broke out, and allowances were made by traders for the war period. But the war was not in existence from June to September last, and at that time there were as many complaints as there are now. Perhaps when the Minister has got his Estimate he will go into that question of how far the policy that has been pursued has been responsible for occasioning unemployment, and what advantages he has derived from it in the way of employment.

Dr. Ryan

A number of matters were raised on the Estimate and I shall deal with them as I noted them. Deputy Byrne informed me that a meeting was held some time ago and that a request came from the meeting that I should receive a deputation. I am sure there would be no great difficulty about that. I have received many deputations on this matter of people in the trade, wholesalers and all the other different interests. We can see if it is possible to get over some of the difficulties about which they complain. I do not think that unemployment in the trade is as serious as Deputy Byrne makes out. I do not know if there were 500 operatives at any time employed by the wholesale distributors in the fish trade in Dublin. There may be some unemployment as a result of the cutting down of imports of fish by the wholesalers in Dublin, but, on the other hand, there is an increase in employment by the Sea Fisheries Association, and there are certainly much better earnings by the inshore fishermen as a result of the stopping of these imports, so that one is more than balanced by the other, I hope, because the idea underlying all this was the betterment of the inshore fishermen.

Mr. A. Byrne (Jnr.)

Has the Minister any figures as to the numbers of men the Sea Fisheries Association have employed?

Dr. Ryan

The number of fishermen?

Mr. Byrne

Yes.

Dr. Ryan

I have—1,500 full-time and 5,000 part-time, roughly. Deputy Byrne wanted to know if the Sea Fisheries Association were making a profit on the import of this fish. They are. As a matter of fact, it was only yesterday that I had a discussion with some of them about that matter, with a view to seeing how it could be avoided. They are not anxious to make a profit on it, but to sell the fish at a reasonable price considering what they paid for it. They will get on to that matter as soon as possible, but, in any case, if they do happen to make a profit, it will go to the members, the inshore fishermen, in prices for their fish.

With regard to this question of the monopoly on which Deputy McGilligan dwelt so long, in the first place, I think I can say, as we can say in all cases, to the Deputies opposite, that they are the wisest men you will meet after the event. I stated at least six or eight times in the House every time I dealt with Fisheries from 1934 to 1937, that I was anxious to get some group to form a trawling company, and I stated that if they did they would get a monopoly, and I am sure that if I went back on the records, I would find that there was never the slightest objection by Deputy McGilligan, Deputy Dillon or Deputy McMenamin to that suggestion during the three years I was waiting for people to come forward. After all, if Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Dillon are such wise people, they should have foreseen the catastrophe, as they call it, and should have warned me between 1934 and 1937 that I should not look for this trawling company, because, if I did, there would be trouble. I should like the Deputies opposite to read the reports of fisheries debates in past years. They will find that I never got the slightest warning.

Mr. McGilligan

It was too stupid to argue about.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy McGilligan asked why we said that one trawler company would be sufficient. Because, looking at it in the ordinary way, there did not appear to be room for more than one, but there was also the past experience of two trawling companies here which came to grief. On that account, it was decided by my Department, after a great deal of consideration, that it would be better to have only one trawling company. I should like to say before going fully into this matter that the whole consideration was the improvement of the inshore fisheries. Some of the Deputies, Deputy McMenamin and Deputy Dillon stated that this was in opposition to the inshore fishermen; in other words, that the trawling company was likely to do them harm. Every time I spoke here from 1934 to 1937, I said that in order to develop inshore fisheries, it was necessary to have a trawling company complementary to the inshore fisheries, because any Deputy who has gone closely into this matter will find that, taking any time of the year, the inshore fishermen catch a certain number of varieties of fish, but not all the varieties we want. For instance, to take one common example, in the autumn time, they do not catch very much cod. There is a very big consumption of cod in the country and the only way we can get it is through a trawling company which will go far afield and get it where the inshore fishermen would not.

In order to protect the market against dumping of fish from abroad, to give the inshore fishermen a better price for their catches, it was necessary to have a trawling company of our own to bring in the varieties wanted and which weren't being supplied by the inshore fishermen, and it was from that point of view only that I said, all through the years 1934 to 1937, that I would welcome a proposition of an Irish trawling company from an Irish group. I said that in public many times; I said it here every time Fisheries came up for discussion and gave my reasons for it, and I was never once warned by the wise men opposite that I was doing a foolish thing. This group which took over the Trawling Company came along and as soon as it became known that this group had arranged to buy over the old Trawling Company, to charter new ships, and to revive the whole trawler business, I had applications from other people who said they wanted to bring in trawlers, too. They had three years from 1934 to 1937; they had seen my statement, I am quit sure, because I suppose these people, naturally, read whatever references appear in newspapers to fisheries here; and they must have known that I was anxious for some Irish person to come along with a trawler company, but they never moved during those three years. They moved, however, immediately they heard that other people had moved and said they wanted to bring in trawlers, too. I said that it was too late then, because one trawling company was enough in this country and a certain group had undertaken to do the trawling here.

Another matter to which Deputy McGilligan referred, which does appear to be rather illogical, if you like, was that my Department—I forget whether it was I or my Department—told the wholesalers, or a wholesaler, in October, I think, that we had asked the trawling company to get more boats and that we were satisfied that they were doing everything possible to meet that request. That is true.

Mr. McGilligan

You said you were not satisfied with what they had been doing.

Dr. Ryan

We were satisfied that they were meeting our request to get boats.

Mr. McGilligan

They did produce documentary evidence that they were going to do it, and you were satisfied.

Dr. Ryan

I want to explain that. When the war started in the beginning of September, the British immediately made an order prohibiting the export of fish to any country, and we came to the conclusion, after consultation with the British, that that order was likely to hold for the duration of the war.

Mr. Dillon

But, in fact, it lapsed.

Mr. McGilligan

It lasted for only a fortnight.

Dr. Ryan

No, it lasted longer; it lasted for three months.

Mr. McGilligan

It was after consultation with the British that you came to the conclusion that it would last for the whole war?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, and we said then to the trawling company: "You will have to supply the whole market here, not only what you have been supplying, but also to make up for imports coming in during the last three or four years." They said they would try. I said in my letter that we had documentary evidence to show that the trawler company were trying to comply with that request. We had evidence that they had actually bought trawlers in another country, but when it came to the point of getting these trawlers released by the Government concerned, the Government would not consent.

That was the documentary evidence we had and it was fairly substantial. Then we had to be satisfied to carry on, as it was impossible to get other trawlers outside what they had. When we saw that the British Government were again prepared to release fish for import into this country, we told the Trawler Company that, as they had not been able to enlarge their fleet sufficiently to supply the market here, we were going to permit imports again, and they said: "If you do that, we cannot carry on," and they decided to release the five vessels they had on hire and to go back to the four vessels that they owned.

Deputy McGilligan quoted prices. Of course the prices are most variable and one could argue almost anything from the prices. I am quite sure that I could get details to show that on certain days prices in Dublin were lower than they were in any English centre, but that would not prove anything; just as you might get days when prices in England were very much lower than they were in Dublin. On the whole, perhaps, the prices in Dublin are higher than in the other centres.

Mr. McGilligan

Does the Minister know of any day, say, in February, on which prices ruled lower here than in England?

Dr. Ryan

I do not, but I think it is quite possible that I could find them. There were certainly days before that when they were much lower here.

Mr. McGilligan

What month?

Dr. Ryan

In November they were lower here. Even if you take the price as being higher in Dublin than in Grimsby or any of the other markets mentioned, we have, perhaps, in some varieties a very much better quality of fish here. For instance, as an example, take cod, which is one of the biggest items on the Dublin market. The majority of the cod sold here at present is line cod and is much superior to the trawl cod sold in England and, therefore, worth much more. If cod is sold here a couple of shillings a stone more than in Grimsby, it is worth more. There is a very much bigger proportion here of that line cod than in the other markets and that would account for it. An explanation like that should be taken into account.

Mr. McGilligan

That is hardly satisfactory.

Dr. Ryan

I am not trying to prove that the prices are lower than in England, but I say that we should not take just the bare quotations for Grimsby and Dublin, compare cod in Grimsby with cod in Dublin, and be satisfied that that was a fair comparison.

Mr. Norton

What is the explanation for the other varieties?

Dr. Ryan

I say that there may be an explanation if you go into it—I do not know. But, generally speaking, if we are not importing fish here and are depending entirely on our inshore fishermen and the Trawler Company we have, the fish here is fresher than it would be in Grimsby or the other markets over there and, therefore, worth at least a little more.

Mr. Hickey

But the quantity is restricted.

Dr. Ryan

It is restricted certainly, and that is putting up the price; but, apart from that, there are other reasons.

Mr. McGilligan

You only say that there may be other reasons.

Dr. Ryan

I say that our fish is better.

Mr. McGilligan

You gave an example of one kind of cod. Is that the only example you can give?

Dr. Ryan

Deputy McGilligan asked about the power of the Sea Fisheries Association to import fish. The association informed me that they got counsel's opinion on the matter, and were satisfied that they had the power. Deputy McGilligan said that if they had not the power we could give them the power by an emergency Order. That is true. If they had not that power and had come to me I would have said: "I will try to get the power for you," because I think that that is the best arrangement at the present time, that the association, which is in touch with the landings of the inshore fishermen, should be the body to import fish here, as they know to-day, for instance, what fish is going to arrive in Dublin to-morrow morning from their members throughout the country, and then they know what message to send by telephone to the exporter in England as to what fish they would like to get in. They may take some little time to adjust themselves, but I think they will be in a position to see that the interests of the inshore fishermen are always kept in mind and that, as far as possible, the consumers here are supplied with fish. There is another matter I should like to ask Deputies to keep in mind, and that is, that if the war goes on we are not sure that fish would continue to come in from England here, and we may be glad, as time goes on, to have trawlers of our own here if a prohibition is put on exports in England again.

Mr. McGilligan

That is the reason why you prevent some people from buying trawlers.

Dr. Ryan

We will not prevent them, because fish is coming in. I am sure that if the Deputy were in my place, whatever case he may come in here and make for people like that, and had asked people for three years to form a company and then, when somebody else comes along, they say: "We want to buy trawlers," he would have no great sympathy for them.

Mr. McGilligan

Have not these people for years hired Dutch trawlers?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. McGilligan

For years they had.

Dr. Ryan

They had not. They had got landings. They had bought fish from the trawlers, but they never hired them.

Mr. McGilligan

They had trawlers.

Dr. Ryan

No, they never made that case to me. I am sure they would make that case if they could.

Mr. McGilligan

I am sure the correspondence will show that.

Dr. Ryan

No. Deputy McGilligan also talked of a certain condition that the Association were putting in with regard to supplying these wholesalers with fish, that they would give it at a lower price if they would supply the country trade. That is a matter that I mean to go into again with the Association. The Association are meeting the wholesalers to see if they can give them better facilities with regard to the sale of fish. On that point, I remember the last time I met the wholesalers they stressed very much the country connection. They were complaining of the licence they were getting and said that was not sufficient for the city trade; that in addition to that there was a very large country trade. They told me all the towns in which they had connections and they were looking for a licence for that trade.

Mr. McGilligan

Of course they have. It is about 20 per cent.

Dr. Ryan

The point made by the Deputy with regard to people getting fish at a lower rate than the retail trade is being examined and I am sure there will be discussions between the two parties. When Deputy McMenamin says that the Trawler Company is sure to cut across the operations of the Sea Fisheries Association, he is in my opinion, absolutely wrong. I would never have advocated, as I did for the three years 1934-1937, getting the Trawler Company going were it not to help the inshore fishermen. I think anybody who goes into the question closely will come to the same conclusion, that you must have some complementary body to the inshore fishermen to supply the market properly with fish before you can protect the industry and keep foreigners from dumping fish here.

Mr. Dillon

Why not subsidise the inshore fishermen?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy has just thought of that while sitting there, and wants me to agree to it without giving it the slightest thought.

Mr. Dillon

I proposed that to you half a dozen times.

Dr. Ryan

Why should we subsidise them if we can get a scheme working under which they can get prices for their fish, and they are getting prices for their fish. They are getting prices for their fish now—better prices than they got for years. What is more, we are getting more fish from them, because they are going out to fish again with new heart owing to the prices they are getting. We are building up a solid system, and we hope to get supplies and other things right in time.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister hopes so?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. With regard to Cork there have been many complaints, and I suppose these complaints are justifiable, too. There have been complaints from Deputy Hickey, who spoke here, and also from Deputy Cosgrave. We have had many complaints from the Department from those two Deputies about supplies of fish to Cork. I have myself met the Cork traders, and the officials of my Department have gone down specially to Cork to meet them; we have tried to get matters adjusted. I think that, with the fish coming in now, as long as it continues to come in as it is coming, Cork will not meet with any further difficulties. They will get their quantity there as far as possible, and at whatever prices are ruling. As regards those other matters complained of by Deputy Cosgrave with regard to the quality and the time of arrival, I have to say that these complaints will be met and seen to. In answer to Deputy Hickey's proposal, that a trawler should call at Cork, I have to say that matter was proposed, when I met the traders from Cork a few months ago. I proposed that the trawlers would call there, but the Cork traders did not appear to like the idea. They thought it better to get imports in addition to the inshore fishermen's supplies.

Mr. Hickey

They did not appreciate the trawler calling to Cork?

Dr. Ryan

They did not like the idea.

Mr. Hickey

Fish is a luxury to the poor of Cork now.

Dr. Ryan

They thought that the trawler calling there would mean that there would be very big supplies which they would find it hard to deal with, and also it might be found that these trawlers would not have the supplies, and the quality of fish, they needed.

Deputies McFadden and McMenanun talked about protection from trawlers for the inshore fishermen. With regard to that I have to say that the new coast patrol boats have been handed over to the Minister for Defence. He will in future be responsible for the protection of our fisheries. I will bring that matter to his attention. The pier at Helvick has been seen to and I will see that anything further that is needed will be attended to. Deputy Dillon spoke of women who took and sold coarse and cheaper fish for the poorer people and he drew a very lowering picture of these people having been entirely swept off the streets of Dublin. That is not altogether true. It is possible that they are not doing as big a business as they were doing.

Mr. McGilligan

I am told that 80 per cent. of their employment has gone.

Dr. Ryan

In other words, they are doing only 20 per cent. of what they were doing?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes.

Mr. Byrne (Jnr.)

That is the position. These women have lost most of their business.

Dr. Ryan

If you want to see the inshore fishermen getting a decent price for their fish, you will find there is no other way but the present for dealing with that matter.

Mr. Dillon

I will tell the Minister how to deal with it. Instruct the Sea Fisheries Association to prepare a schedule of prices for the various qualities of fish mentioned by Deputy McGilligan; say to the inshore fishermen: "If you land that fish where you are in the habit of landing it, we will buy the fish from you and dispose of it." Any loss made in that can be made good; the Minister can come along and tell us here. We would be agreeable to support any proposal that would provide for a remunerative price to the inshore fishermen. We do not want to raise the price of fish to the consumer and I will guarantee that, as far as this is concerned, within reasonable limits anything the Minister needs will be given him freely here. There will be no loss to the inshore fishermen, to the wholesale merchants or to the consumers.

Dr. Ryan

I understand. This is one of those generous proposals from the opposite side.

Mr. Dillon

It would cost far less than the present system is costing.

Dr. Ryan

No. This is going to cost nothing.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, indeed it is.

Mr. McGilligan

It is costing the consumer here the difference between 4/- a stone in Billingsgate and 9/- here.

Dr. Ryan

We could get days where we could make the consumers of Britain kick over the traces too, by showing prices there as against here.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister cannot, over a three months' period, say that the situation in England as regards fish prices is marked by an increase.

Dr. Ryan

I admit that the prices are higher here.

Mr. McGilligan

Shockingly higher. The prices are over 150 per cent. to 200 per cent. higher here than in Billingsgate or Grimbsy.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the present arrangement is costing much more than the proposal I am putting to the Minister?

Dr. Ryan

How can you subsidise every industry? Some time ago we said that whatever is a fair return to the producer of food in this country should be paid by the consumer; if that principle is accepted it must be admitted that the Sea Fisheries Association are paying a fair return to the inshore fishermen for their fish and selling it to the consumer at a fair price. That is what largely rules prices. With regard to the question of crews, I must say that I never looked on this as a means of employment for the Irish people, because the numbers employed are small. I do not suppose there are more than 100 people employed on the trawlers.

Mr. McGilligan

I am told that only 5 per cent. of them are Irishmen. As a matter of fact, it was stated that over 85 per cent. of them are foreigners.

Dr. Ryan

The trawling company told me that it was the other way about, that over 85 per cent. of them were Irish. That is what I was told when I inquired.

Mr. McGilligan

Did the Minister look at their names?

Dr. Ryan

No, but I will do so.

Mr. McGilligan

They are nearly all Fleetwood men.

Mr. Dillon

That is what most of them are. They are not Irishmen.

Dr. Ryan

Apart from the crew of the trawler, the shore men and the market people are Irish.

Mr. McGilligan

The figure for non-Irish on the boats was given to me as over 80 per cent.

Dr. Ryan

I am making this point that although the Trawling Company itself informed me that there are almost 100 men and that the big majority are Irish, I never looked at it from that point of view at all; I never looked at it as being important from the point of view of employment. It was from the point of view of the inshore fishermen I looked at the matter.

Mr. McGilligan

Did not the Minister make a complaint that the crew were Dutchmen?

Dr. Ryan

I do not think so.

Mr. McGilligan

I understood that was the complaint made against them by the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

No. In the various conditions which I laid down with the Trawling Company I did not make any condition with regard to the nationality of the crews, because we recognised that it might be impossible to get Irishmen for the crews.

Mr. McGilligan

Does the Minister say that there is better business for the inshore fishermen at the moment?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

I have records here for February, 1940, and for two dates in February, 1938, and these returns show that the returns are much worse now.

Dr. Ryan

In dealing with inshore fishermen you must take all the dates over a period. Bad weather may work a terrible difference. You have to take the total over a period. Taking the total of a month's return, I would say there is a great improvement in 1940.

Mr. Dillon

What, approximately, would be the weekly payment by the Sea Fisheries Association to inshore fishermen for fish supplied by them?

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid the Deputy will have to give notice of that question.

Mr. Dillon

Suppose you add to the economic value of that fish a bonus of 50 per cent., and pay that out of the Exchequer, how much would it be in the 12 months?

Dr. Ryan

Probably not more than £100,000, but I am not sure.

Mr. Dillon

With £100,000 we could guarantee to the inshore fishermen remunerative prices for all the fish they could land. Does the Minister suggest that the loss of employment, disorganisation, and increased cost of fish to the consumer is costing us less than £100,000 at present? Speaking with the fullest authority of my colleagues in the Party, we shall support an Estimate for £100,000 to enable the Minister to give economic prices for fish to the inshore fishermen, because we regard the employment and the social amenity involved as well worth that sum, and let the normal trade in fish be resumed.

Dr. Ryan

You would want to vote for the taxation, too.

Mr. Dillon

I shall undertake to do that.

Mr. Norton

The Minister has told us of the origin of the Sea Fisheries Association, of his desire to help the inshore fishermen and of the necessity for giving the trawling company a monopoly in order to subsidise the inshore fishermen, but the effect of the whole arrangement has been to send up prices very rapidly in the past few months. I am afraid that in the long run, the public will rebel so strongly against fish prices that continuance of the present method may do considerable harm even to the inshore fishermen. With the knowledge at his disposal and his close contact with the industry, would the Minister say whether the public is to expect a continuance of fish prices at their present level, whether we may expect a reduction or whether further increases are probable?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know what the price of imported fish may be in the future but I think I can promise definitely that we will bring more fish in and, probably, be able to bring the price of fish down more closely to the English level.

Mr. Norton

When you say "bring in," you mean "import"?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. We shall import larger quantities and try to bring down the price. The Sea Fisheries Association is only three weeks on this job and, when they get a hit of experience, they may improve things very much, so that we shall have more and cheaper fish. We must, however, remember the interests of our inshore fishermen.

Mr. Dillon

I now indicate to the Minister the source from which the necessary revenue can be got to finance the plan I have put before him and I guarantee the support of this Party for the proposal. The proposal is: blow up the industrial alcohol factories and devote the money required for their maintenance to this project.

Mr. Lemass

And lose £25,000.

Mr. Dillon

Devote the taxation necessary to keep these factories going to the support of the inland fisheries.

Mr. Lemass

That would not be a source of revenue; it would be a source of loss.

Mr. McGilligan

What would be a source of loss?

Mr. Lemass

The industrial alcohol factories. To do what Deputy Dillon suggests would be a source of loss to the Exchequer.

Mr. McGilligan

Nonsense:

Vote put and agreed to.