Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 May 1940

Vol. 80 No. 10

Committee on Finance - Vote 31—Fisheries.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £21,519 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1941, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Iascach Mara agus Intíre, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £21,519 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

There is a reduction of £46,000 gross, or £40,912 net, in this Vote on the amount provided for the preceding 12 months. This net difference is explained mainly by two items which appeared in the 1939-40 Estimate but are not included in this Estimate. Last year, there was a special item of £25,000 by way of ex-gratia compensation to certain parties in respect of a fishery in the River Erne formerly held by them. Secondly, the Sea Fisheries Protection Patrol, having been taken over by the Department of Defence, a sum of about £15,000, which would otherwise be included in this year's Estimate, has been omitted.

Only a few sub-heads call for comment. Under sub-head E. 4, there appears in the present Estimate merely a token item of £5 instead of the sum of £1,065 last year. Whaling operations are conducted by units each of which comprises a factory ship, with eight or ten vessels known as whale catchers in attendance. Prior to the outbreak of war in September, 1939, there were registered in this country under the Whale Fisheries Act, 1937, three such factory ships, together with nine of the 30 whale catchers working up to that. We received the licence fees in respect of the three factory ships and of the nine whale catchers. The remaining whale catchers being registered in Great Britain, the licence fees in respect of them were collected by that country. As the supervision of operations for each unit was entrusted to an inspecting officer stationed on the factory ship, it follows that we had to pay the fees and expenses of such officers. We put it to the British Government that that was rather unfair. They were getting licence fees from a number of the catchers, but they had no outlay because we were doing the supervision of the factory ships. The British Government saw our point of view and paid over a certain amount towards our expenses, which we treated as an Exchequer receipt. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to state that the three factory ships were withdrawn from our registry immediately before the outbreak of the war. In this Estimate, we make no provision for payment of remuneration of the inspecting officers on such ships or for the receipt of licence fees in respect of the three vessels. That amount goes out as well as the amount under Appropriations-in-Aid, which come in in the form of fees.

As regards sub-head E. 5—Steam Trawlers—I dealt with the question of insurance on a Supplementary Estimate. I explained the position very fully on that occasion and I said that our steam trawlers were in a unique position with regard to insurance against special war risks inasmuch as they do not come within the ordinary pool arrangement operated by Lloyds in respect of vessels belonging to the mercantile marine, nor are they eligible for participation in the scheme of reinsurance set up by the British Government in connection with the mutual insurance clubs which deal with the insurance of steam trawlers registered in the United Kingdom. Our steam trawlers found it impossible to get any sort of reasonable rate of insurance. When I brought in the Supplementary Estimate, I explained that I intended to have the war insurance premium paid for these trawlers, subject to the owners signing a deed containing safeguards of a nature satisfactory to the Minister. One of the principal safeguards was that if any boat was lost owing to the war, it would be replaced and the Minister would have a mortgage for some time, at least, on it. The time was not specified then and I do not think it is specified yet because we have not come to agreement with the owners. What I had in mind was that if a boat on which we were paying the premium were lost, the owners would not put the money in their pocket but would replace that boat by another fishing vessel. So that the vessel would remain fishing in these waters, the Minister would have a mortgage on it for two years and, therefore, it could not be sold or got rid of in any way. The conditions which we sought have never been agreed upon and I am not sure that it will be necessary to pay this amount during the present financial year. If not paid, it will go back into the Exchequer.

Coming to the group of sub-heads under the heading "Inland Fisheries," we have sub-head F. 1, which contains five items and shows in the aggregate an increase of £300 over last year's provision of £6,000. This increase concerns only one of the five items— Payments to local authorities under Section 15 of the Fisheries Act, 1925, for which we provide £3,800 this year as against £3,500 last year. This is a disbursement made automatically by my Department on the sealed certificate of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. When, under the Fisheries Act, 1925, the poor rate upon fishery assessments, which had therefore been paid to the local council—county or urban as the case might be—was, in effect, made payable to the boards of fishery conservators, there was a complementary provision inserted in that Act to the following effect—if the loss of these rates formerly derived from fishery assessments should result in the aggregate poor rate for the area served by the council in question being increased by a sum equivalent to more than the produce of 1d. in the £ on the entire valuation, then the excess over such figure was to be made good by my Department. It was felt at that time that the county or the urban council might contribute 1d. in the £ towards the protection of fisheries, but if there was anything more it should be made good by the Department. That sum of £3,800 is provided to carry out that undertaking.

We pass now to the four sub-heads by which funds are provided for the Sea Fisheries Association. Sub-head G. 1 is the usual Grant-in-Aid of administration, issues from which, it will be observed, are made with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The sum set down is similar to that for the preceding year. Sub-head G. 2 is also a Grant-in-Aid, from which issues will be made with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The money is intended for work of general development by the association. Sub-head G. 3 is a provision for the supply of boats and gear to members of the association on hire purchase. At first glance it seems as if there was a serious reduction in the amount to be provided, because on page 142 of the Estimates there is shown £15,000 voted last year as compared with the provision of £10,000 now proposed. The sum originally voted under this sub-head was £10,000, whilst the sum of £8,000 was voted in the same year, that is last year, for the preceding sub-head.

When war conditions set in last September, the directors of the association very prudently suggested that they should be enabled to buy in stocks of gear and also a couple of good-class second-hand boats, about which they had been negotiating, before prices rose. We therefore arranged, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to seek the sanction of the House for a re-arrangement of the two sub-heads by which G. 2 was reduced from £8,000 to £3,000 and G. 3 was increased from £10,000 to £15,000. Covering approval was given by the Dáil on the 1st March last. It will be seen, therefore, that with the £10,000 now to be provided there will be placed at the disposal of the association for boats and gear for two years a total of £25,000, which is a great deal more than was voted for the purpose in the two years immediately preceding.

In the case of Sub-head G. 4, there is a substantial increase in the provision of £5,000 as against £1,000 for last year. The reason is that I am anxious to have the directors of the association placed in a position to make more suitable experiment in the matter of cold storage. It will be noted that anything spent under this sub-head is repayable in due course to the Exchequer. Taking the four sub-heads collectively, Deputies will observe that the total sum set down for the current financial year is precisely the same as that provided last year, namely, £29,000.

Mr. Brodrick

I intervene in this debate largely because of the answer given by the Minister to Deputy Doyle at question time to-day. It is rather remarkable that while we are expending as much as £32,219 on the development of fisheries in this country, the Minister has to admit that this year a consignment of fish landed in Galway from the sea was considered unfit for human use. It is the first time I heard of anything of that sort. I am rather surprised at such a thing happening, in view of the fact that there is a Sea Fisheries Association existing there, with the cost of the administration alone in the neighbourhood of £10,000, and the cost of development something like £4,000 this year. The Minister might tell us if that is the only fish consignment that was destroyed, because it was unfit for human use, during the last year or two. He might also tell us, in view of the cost of administration, what the Department is really doing. Is it that the fishermen are not capable, that they have not got the requisite gear, or is it that the transport facilities are not adequate? If there is anything at fault in that connection it is up to the Minister to remedy it. In the West of Ireland, within five miles of the coast, and even in Galway City, one can hardly get fish. I trust the Minister will investigate this matter and, in view of what it is costing the country, I hope he will see that in future fish will not be found in such condition that they have to be done away with.

With regard to inland fisheries, I notice that certain provision is being made for fish hatcheries. I do not presume to know a lot about the fishing industry beyond what has been brought to my notice, but I have certain information with regard to Oughterard and Lough Corrib. So far as the Lough is concerned, there is an area there of 75 square miles and there are close on 400 islands. Up to recent years there was a sum of £50 given annually in respect to hatcheries on that particular lake. That was paid during the British régime. Inside the last few years the Lough Corrib Anglers' Association expended something like £700 in the development of hatcheries. Activities in that direction are extremely valuable, because it means that you can have very good fishing at very small cost. The anglers' association have done their part, but they find some difficulty in getting in money at the present time. They have expended altogether £700, £500 at one time and £200 later. It costs them at least £100 a year to keep the hatcheries going.

If we are anxious for tourist development, there is one thing that will always attract tourists to our country and that is good fishing. The most the Minister can promise towards the Lough Corrib hatchery for the year 1941-42 is a sum of £15. There are altogether five hatcheries and the amounts expended on them are £310, £100, £15, £70 and £75. All the anglers' association ask for is a sum of £50. It costs them £100 to run the hatcheries. Where you have people interested and prepared to develop hatcheries as they are doing on the Corrib, not so much for their own enjoyment as for the enjoyment of those who may visit the district, they should get every encouragement. Those people who are interested in the hatcheries do not, perhaps, get so much enjoyment out of the fishing as the visiting anglers. This means a great benefit to the district, which is a poor district, thinly populated. I think the Minister should meet them in a more generous fashion. They are prepared to pay £100 for the upkeep of the hatcheries and the least he might give is £50. I hope he will alter his mind and make a more generous contribution.

Perhaps the Minister will be able to devise some method by which sea fisheries can be better developed. It would be advisable if proper transport facilities were made available. This would be a boon to the people who go out fishing, because they would be assured of a market. It makes them downhearted when they find their consignments arriving at the Galway station and perhaps they will be turned down as unfit for use, all through the lack of proper transport facilities. I trust the Minister will see to it that the transport system is improved and that there will be a guaranteed sale for whatever fish are caught.

Mr. Hickey

I shall have a question on the Order Paper to-morrow arising out of information I got from the fish merchants in Cork City. They tell me that mackerel were selling at 3d. and 5d. each, according to size, at a time when they were dumped in Kinsale, where they were offered at 12 a 1d. There was no demand for them there and many of them were thrown back into the ocean. So far as Cork City is concerned, I often wonder if even 2 per cent. of the people are supplied with fish.

Mr. Moore

They must have plenty of money there when they can give 5d. for a mackerel.

Mr. Hickey

That is the evidence I have had from the fish merchants trading in Cork, and I am giving it to the Minister for all i is worth. As a matter of fact, I put down a question yesterday about it. If the Department have two or three trawlers in Dublin I wonder why they do not send one of them down to the South. We have big towns in the South like Mallow and Fermoy, and I doubt if the people in them ever get fish at all. I think the Minister and his Department must be pretty well aware of the complaints that come from Cork, and of the difficulty that is experienced there in getting supplies of fish, especially since the people were prevented from marketing the fish themselves. If there are three trawlers in Dublin, I suggest that one of them be sent to operate around Kinsale so that we in the South may be able to get a supply of fresh fish. I am satisfied that if the people got adequate supplies of fish, they would acquire the habit of eating more fish than they do. I think that in Cork and the surrounding towns the people must have almost lost the taste of fish. I hope that the Minister will act on my suggestion and send one of his trawlers down South so that something may be done to develop the fish market in our southern city.

Mr. O'Neill

We are asked to believe that the Lord Mayor of Cork paid the extravagant price he has mentioned for mackerel. If he had sent word to me to Kinsale I could have replied by telling him to send along a two-ton lorry and I could have filled it for him for nothing. On the particular occasion he speaks of there was an extraordinary glut of mackerel for one or two days. That occurred not only in Kinsale, but in several other places on the South coast, as well as on the Cornish coast and in other places in the South of England. At that time there was no demand whatever for mackerel. In Kinsale we could not get people to take it away for nothing. Mackerel is a very rich fish and at the present time is not very popular with the Irish people. At this particular time nobody seemed to want mackerel. I believe that at that time the fishermen were fishing for herring, and that all this mackerel was caught by the herring boats by a sort of accident. The fishermen did not want it and found it very difficult to get rid of it.

In the South and in the South West we had, in the past, what was known as the autumn mackerel. This was a very fine fish which used to be pickled for the American market. There was a very big export market for it from Berehaven, Valentia and various other places on the coast in between. Unfortunately, as in the case of many other things, we were limited in our market. This pickled mackerel went mainly to the United States. The people's ideas and their tastes in fish have changed there as well as in other places. I have a letter before me dealing with this from a native of Baltimore who is now living in California. In reference to this, when the Minister was recently in Cork, this question of disposing of our mackerel was brought to his notice. One member of the county council suggested to him that he might send one of his inspectors down there to see if anything could be done with regard to the curing of it. There was a glut of mackerel on our shores and it seemed a pity that such a good and excellent food should be wasted. It was suggested that some means should be found for preserving it, so that it might reach our poor people in other parts of the State. I hope the Minister will send down an inspector, and when he goes down that he will see the proper people; people who will be in a position to give him first-hand information and some ideas from the point of view of preserving this fish; people able to speak from experience in the past of the methods that should be employed for dealing with this fish. The Minister, I suggest, should be guided by people with up-to-date ideas.

As I have stated, I had a letter from California from a man who is a native of Baltimore. He appeared before the commission which sat here in 1921, inquiring into Irish resources. It was the famous Figgis Commission. In the course of his letter he says:

"At that time I told them that the fishing industry, as we knew it then, would almost disappear, and that we would have to adopt some new ideas. They laughed at me for my pessimism. Unfortunately I was right. If it were not for the war now, it would be hard to do anything. The market for salt mackerel is gone here for ever, and anyone who tells you differently does not know what he is talking about. They now have a brand new idea for marketing fish. They freeze them, and then fillet them."

I think the Minister has got some ideas about this. I find that under sub-head G (4) hs is asking for a sum of money to be used for experiments with regard to the cold storage of fish. If he is going to carry out those experiments in a big way, the sum of money set down will not be nearly sufficient. If the best possible results are to be obtained from those experiments more money will be needed for this purpose. I believe that somebody in one of our coastal towns who had an over-catch of herrings or mackerel and could not sell them, filleted and salted them. They were sold in little tubs, and I understand that under this condition they are very palatable. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will give us some further information with regard to the ideas he has in regard to the proposed experiments under sub-head G (4).

In regard to the fishing industry in general, I do not think the Minister can be patted on the back. He shows that he is still making money out of the whales. I do not think that will arouse very much enthusiasm amongst our fishermen. Personally, I am rather pessimistic about the condition of our fisheries. The sum provided for in the Estimate is very small for an industry of this kind. I think we will have to show more imagination if we want to develop this industry, and will have to spend money on it in a big way. If we cannot make the industry a success, then, at all events, we ought to make it a glorious failure, and try other resources before we admit we are beaten. The number of our fishermen has gone down from 12,000 to 7,255, and in the last few years only 1,464 of the latter are regular fishermen. That is to say, that along our whole coast we have only 1,464 men who are engaged in and getting their regular living out of the fishing industry. While that decline has been taking place, the number of boats has gone down, from 1913, to 1,696. I believe that the report of the Sea Fisheries Association shows that there has been an increase in the number since last year. That body is showing an awakened interest in this important industry. I do not think it has done anything very wonderful, but I do admit it is now working on the right lines, and, perhaps, in the course of a few years it will develop into something useful. We have been importing fish to the value of over £300,000— fresh fish to the value of over £212,000, and preserved fish to the value of over £104,000. The value of the whole of the landings of fish on our own coast, including shell fish, only amounts to £162,328, so that we are importing more than twice the quantity of fish that we are catching at home. In view of those figures, I do not think the Minister can be patted on the back. I believe that he is simply taking the fishing industry as a part-time duty. His principal duties are concerned with the Department of Agriculture, and I do not know that he has much time to spare for sea going, particularly since the vessels for the protection of our fisheries are no longer under his care. They are now in charge of the Department of Defence.

I would be glad to hear from the Minister what exactly is the arrangement that has been arrived at between his Department and the Department of Defence with regard to the control of those boats. It would be a very useful thing to know in regard to the control of those boats which are supposed to be there for the purpose of watching the foreign trawlers. I should point out that every foreign boat that comes along our shores and is captured is not a trawler. Every sort of boat seems to be called a trawler. There seem to be some queer ideas about what a trawler is. Steam drifters are sometimes referred to as trawlers. Recently, a boat which was really a crabber and used for lobster-fishing was referred to as a foreign trawler. It is no such thing. The unfortunate owner of this French crabber was brought before the District Justice and fined £50. I think the Justice had the idea that the man was using a trawler. The danger in the matter of these steam trawlers is this, that they catch not only valuable fish but that they do an immense amount of destruction to the spawning beds.

But this poor French crabber was not doing much harm. He was only taking lobsters off the Bull Rock. At all events he was fined £50. It was a pretty savage sentence for the amount of harm he was doing. Anyway, the poor fellow had no money to pay and the Minister, the court and the Gárda took charge of him. He had no money of any kind. The people at Castletownbere had to feed him and his crew. It was a most extraordinary spectacle that this man who had been fined £50 had to be fed by the charity of people whose rights he had filched. In connection with the matter I got in touch with the Department of Fisheries. They said they had nothing to do with it. The Department of Defence had responsibility for the capture and both Departments told me that the responsibility now rested with the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice said they had nothing to do but to collect the fine and they said I had better get on to the Department of External Affairs. I got in touch with the Department of External Affairs and they got in touch with the French Minister here. He got in touch with the owners of the boat and the fine of £50 was paid and the man allowed to depart. I mention this to show that there is want of co-ordination between the Department of Defence and the Department of Fisheries with regard to these particular trawlers or protection boats. I am sure the Minister will be able to settle this matter. It is important that we should know where we stand in regard to these things.

There is particular trouble in Dublin with regard to trawlers and the marketing of fish. This question requires particular attention because it is convenient to the seat of Government and to the Department. I am sure the Minister will have no difficulty in making some appeasement with regard to the difficulties that have arisen. I am rather concerned with the industry as a whole and how it affects the poorer people. During the last war by 1918 there was found to be great scarcity of fish. That was because the English trawlers were engaged in mine-sweeping and in other activities, so that for once in regard to our fishing industry England's difficulty became Ireland's opportunity. I put it to the Minister that this present war is likely to be a long one, too. He and his Department should show more imagination and effort to get better results for our fishermen in the matter of what is euphemistically called the harvest of the sea.

Respecting cured mackerel, I would like to know what the Department is doing in regard to this. It might be turned into a valuable asset for our fishermen. Complaints have been made about the price of fish in Dublin. I think that is due to the fact that certain monopolies have taken place with regard to the marketing. That is a local matter, but I know there are certain restrictions about the importation of fish. That restriction can be taken off now because there is really no importation of fish and fish prices are being kept up because the fish that is caught locally is going across the Channel. When the English trawlers are engaged in mine-sweeping they find the North Sea not a very healthy place for their fishing operations at the moment. We now have an opportunity during the present year to develop our fishing industry, and more efforts should be made and better results perhaps can be achieved.

The Sea Fisheries Association seems to be doing good work wherever it has been got going; the members seem to be pleased with the prices they are getting and with the general results. The great trouble in this country is not so much the catching of the fish as the marketing of it. Though we are a Catholic country, we are not a fish-eating people. Generally speaking, fish is only eaten when we cannot help it. That is on Fridays. The facilities for marketing fish should be extended. The Sea Fisheries Association tried to do something in that line but it has not been the success which was hoped for. It should not be too hard a task to get our fish to the market. There is no place in Ireland more than 50 miles from the sea. It should be easy for us to get fish in every town in Ireland.

In spite of what has been done our fisheries still show a decline. There is nothing to induce people to put money into the industry in a commercial way. That being the case, we must depend largely on the efforts made by the Fisheries Department and the Sea Fisheries Association. They must do more than they have been doing to educate the people in the matter of eating fish so as to put the industry on such a basis that people will go into it in the hope of making it a commercial success and putting their money into the enterprise. Up to the present people who have money are nervous about investing it in the fishery industry. With proper care and attention there should be money in our fisheries, not only for the people who have money to invest, but for the hard-working fishermen themselves.

Mr. Moore

Might I remind the Minister that everywhere around the coast there are complaints that oyster beds are being neglected. There is a substantial loss in that way. I have been asked again and again in Arklow how is it that within living memory there was over a score of boats in that town engaged in oyster fishing. A very valuable trade existed for their oysters. Now, the beds are neglected and none of the trade has been left. It has been brought to the notice of the Department that promises were made from time to time that something would be done about cleaning the beds and helping the revival of the industry. So far nothing has been done. That is, of course, a very valuable section of the fishing industry, and I suggest to the Minister in connection with the amount for which he is asking for development work that there might be a certain amount of attention given to that particular matter. Certainly I should like to hear some explanation as to why it is, with all the complaints which have reached the Department as to the neglect of the oyster beds in the Arklow area, no action has ever been taken with a view to reviving that industry.

Mr. Brasier

There is no Department of State that has had more criticism levelled at it than this Department, and perhaps with a certain amount of justice, because, for the amount placed at its disposal, the results at any rate are not what the general public would expect from a Department that controls a coastline that is practically as long as the English coastline. The results of the harvest of the sea are very meagre indeed when compared with those of the other country. We have very large catches of fish from time to time. I am very glad to hear from Deputy O'Neill and Deputy Hickey that Kinsale is upholding its ancient tradition as the seat of the fishing industry. For hundreds of years Kinsale has been one of the largest fishing centres in the South of Ireland, and its curing station has been of very great importance. Unfortunately, the catches of fish are much too sporadic and the supply is not regular. The Minister was asked to send an inspector down to West Cork to try to arrange for a revival of curing stations there, but there are certain objections to them. It might be possible for the Minister to have such a thing as a floating station for curing fish; in other words, a large ship which, at short notice, would go to any place where there was a large catch, cure the fish on board, and store it or put it into a refrigerating station to be kept until there was a market for the fish. I do not agree that the taste for cured mackerel has gone out. I think that as long as mackerel are cheap enough people will buy them.

As to the remarks made by Deputy Brodrick and Deputy Hickey with regard to the difficulty of marketing fish, that is a matter we will have to take very serious notice of. I remember being approached by an official of the Sea Fisheries Association to get the local authority, with which I happened to be connected, to take their supplies from the Sea Fisheries Association. I think that the Sea Fisheries Association has got remarkable support from the local authorities, and that that would justify even more extended operations in their capacity either as purchasers of fish or agents for the sale of fish. I think that that side of it might be developed at a time when we have not the means of importing fish which we had a short time ago. The fact that we have not on the other side a competing market for the sale of fish in this country ought to encourage the Sea Fisheries Association to redouble their activities. I have been connected with that body since its inception and I should like to pay a tribute to the work they are doing. I feel that they are doing their best to cope with difficulties in a country where, perhaps, the fishing industry is becoming a little unpopular.

I was sorry to hear from the Minister that the amount for advances for the purchase of boats and gear had been reduced this year from £15,000 to £10,000. I do not agree with him with regard to pooling last year's and this year's votes. Is there any reason why he should reduce this year's grant? I feel that, with the opportunities for expansion on the part of the Sea Fisheries Association, the Minister would be justified in maintaining that grant at last year's figure. Perhaps the falling off in fishermen is due to the fact that the older men have grown tired; that they have been struggling against difficulties, and that their sons are not anxious to enter the industry unless some encouragement is given to them. I have no hesitation in saying that advances for the purchase of motor boats and modern gear would be a means of inducing young and energetic men to enter this industry. The only difficulty in the way is that, while the Sea Fisheries Association at one time gave these advances without a deposit, they now insist on a rather large deposit of 20 per cent., which, with the increasing cost of boats, is a serious matter for poor men. I suggest that a very nominal deposit would meet the case. Many a young fisherman would be glad to obtain even a secondhand boat and be able to produce a nominal deposit of, say, 5 or 10 per cent.

With the increasing opportunities for the fishing industry, I believe that the association would be filling the position it was meant to fill by giving every encouragement to the sea-fishing industry. It is only by adopting modern methods and, perhaps, more encouraging schemes, that you can keep such an industry in existence. Many industries in this country have been bolstered up by subsidies or other forms of encouragement, and I do not see why an industry which is of such importance to this country should not get the encouragement that is given to other industries. A man may go out fishing many times and not catch anything. He has to employ other men who have to rely upon their share of the catch, and if there is not a good catch, these men may get little or nothing. If there was a better system of making advances for the purchase of motor boats, I have no doubt that you would add very much to the prosperity of the fishing industry. I suggest to the Minister that the lowering of the deposit which the fisherman has to put down in order to get a loan from the Sea Fisheries Association is a matter that should engage his very special attention. We all know that the mercantile marine and the navy are recruited largely from fishermen. As we are developing our naval resources in this country, I suggest that now is the time to maintain, even at some expense to the State, the only industry from which that class of person can be recruited. These men are undoubtedly a very substantial asset to the country and the Minister would be well-advised to do what he can for them.

There is another side of this question, and that is the encouragement of the gathering of shell-fish which we export in great quantities to England, and from which, during the winter season at any rate, a frugal living can be gained by people in our seaport towns and villages. That is a matter which might engage the attention of the Sea Fisheries Association.

Unfortunately the prices paid for shellfish are so meagre that they are not such as would encourage fishermen to continue to gather shellfish if they can get any other form of employment. Quite recently a rather curious case arose in Ballycotton where they are accustomed to fish for pollock with seine nets. The fishery inspector on the Blackwater, which takes in that district, made a seizure of nets, but I am very glad to say that the prosecutions resulted in success for the fishermen, due to the fact that they were fishing quite legally with seine nets. As there seems to be a good deal of misapprehension as to what constitutes seine nets, it might be advisable for the Minister to get his experts in the Department to define what these nets are.

On the Blackwater the Lismore estate still carries on its feudal activities uncontrolled. I know the Minister is very amused at that, when there is a democratic Government here, but I am rather surprised it is allowed to go on so long. In spite of the amusement, the living of a number of men has been curtailed. As the House is aware the Lismore Estates Company was able to exercise control of the harbour at Youghal, and able to demand a licence fee of £10, in addition to the ordinary fishery licence, and these men have to pay the amount whether they like it or not. All forms of fishing are controlled there by one company, whose activities date prior to the time of the Earl of Cork and Sir Walter Raleigh. The time has come when the Minister might, either by compensation or by other means, give these fishermen rights on a river on which their forefathers fished.

I also wish to refer to the granting of loans for salmon nets. I am perfectly well aware of the reasons that restrained the Department from giving these nets, but, at the same time, it must be remembered that the amount derived from salmon fishing exceeds what is got from all other classes of fishing. The equipment is very expensive but the Fisheries Department, apparently, can give no help to the fisherman in that matter. That is one of the things that should engage the Minister's attention now. Large numbers of deep sea anglers come to this country for this interesting sport, and large fish are captured. These sportsmen spend a large amount of money, not only amongst the hotels but on the hiring of boats. I hope the time will come when the Minister will visit Ballycotton to enjoy the sport. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance enjoyed his experience. He can certainly give the Minister for Fisheries some information about it. Our object should be to keep fishermen engaged in an industry that is of such importance to the country.

There is an enormous field for development if the Department would only carry out the functions for which it was formed, and if the Sea Fisheries Association would engage in activities for which it was intended. I have some knowledge of fishing schemes, but I feel that enough has not been done for the fishing industry by a Department to which so much money has been granted, and I very much regret that I cannot applaud it on the results obtained.

Mr. Linehan

I am afraid my main contribution to this debate will be to express the same old complaint to which Deputy Brasier has referred, concerning the Lismore Estate. Year after year, complaints are made on this Estimate about the position of the famous weir at Lismore. Apparently, the Minister is quite satisfied that the weir is not being operated in a manner that hurts people who are fishing for salmon in the western regions of the river. Whether the Minister is right or wrong, every fisherman from Lismore to the spot where the Blackwater rises is still complaining about the weir. I wonder if the Minister has ever looked into the question, and if he has any idea of the number of fish taken by the Lismore estate from that weir. Has he any idea of the actual weight in tons of fish taken out of that weir and sold by this company every year? Each year when this question is raised, the Minister appears to be satisfied that there is nothing wrong with the Lismore weir. I am perfectly satisfied from what I hear from anglers' associations and from individual anglers, that the Lismore weir is still a great cause of complaint, and that a certain body is getting the best of the salmon fishing, as salmon cannot get up to where the ordinary anglers are.

That raises another important question. Despite the fact that 99 per cent of the people at each side of the river are owners of the land in fee simple, very few of them are owners of the fishing rights. We have the extraordinary anomaly that while the estate was purchased by the Land Commission, and the tenants vested in fee simple, only one or two tenants had brains enough to see what was going on, and refused to enter into purchase agreements until they got the fishery and game rights. On that river, and I am sure on many other rivers, 99 per cent. of the fishing rights are owned by landlords who have disappeared from the district as a result of the operations of land purchase. It is ridiculous at this stage in our history to have 20 to 30 miles of a river owned by somebody who has long since disappeared, while the fishing revenue goes to someone who is unknown to people in the district. I know one stretch of the Blackwater, 14 or 15 miles in length, on which only two tenant purchasers own the fishing rights. The rest of the fishing rights are vested in the original landlord who was bought out over 25 years ago.

The sooner the Department of Fisheries takes over all these rights that were retained by landlords under the Land Purchase Acts the better. Or, if there is any letting value, some arrangements should be made whereby the tenant purchasers could get the fishery rights. To my mind the latter proposition is the better one, if we are going to develop local interest in fisheries. For the protection of fisheries I can see no better way of doing that than by making those who own the land the owners of the fisheries.

If the man owning the adjoining land happens to own the fishery himself, he is going to object to poaching. He will not allow salmon poaching and he will inquire if people have the £2 salmon licence. What strikes me in the case I have in mind is that the two tenant-farmers who do own fishery rights in that particular stretch of river are the only two persons I know who have any interest in the fisheries in that area. I defy the Minister himself to go down and try to fish for salmon on either bits of river and get away with it, whether he has a licence or not. These two persons are jealous of their rights and are very proud that, after the passing of the Act, they had sufficient brains, when they were purchasing their land, to get the fishing rights. The rest of the river is not really controlled by anybody. One portion is now let to the local angling association. The best way in which the matter could be attended to would be by giving the sporting rights to the people who own the land on each side of the river.

I do not agree with Deputy O'Neill. He suggested that there was no taste for fish in this country. That is no wonder. It would be very hard for the average person to have a taste for fish because he rarely gets fish. In one town in my constituency, there is some attempt made to supply fish, but most people going into an inland town are extremely surprised if they are able to get fresh fish on a fast day. To get it, is the exception rather than the rule. I cannot understand the lack of business ability in the matter. We ought to have a greater market for fish than any other country because we have more fast days, allowing for the days preceding our own local feast days, the days preceding the ordinary feast days, Lent, the Advent season, Ember Days, and the other occasions on which fish is not allowed. There is no use in saying that our people have not a taste for fish. Ninety-nine per cent. of the people inland never got a chance to acquire a taste for fish. I cannot understand why some attempt is not made to bring inland some proportion of the fish being caught by the various organisations, such as the Sea Fisheries Association, which the Minister has developed. If it were possible to get regular supplies of fish in inland towns, there would be a reasonable demand for it and it would be a profitable enterprise.

Under sub-head G, one of the smallest items in the Estimate occurs. It relates to incidental expenses and covers advertisements in periodicals and newspapers. The amount is £175. In his capacity as Minister for Agriculture, the Minister has been a very successful advertiser in a number of directions. He has by advertisement told us to grow more wheat, to grow more beet and to drink more milk. I do not see why he should not, proceeding along the same lines, advise us to eat more fish. Of course, little purpose would be served by an advertising campaign for the eating of fish unless the Minister were in the position to provide the fish for the people to eat.

It is hard to understand the makeup of this Estimate. There are a number of very small items of expenditure. Are these figures merely repeated year after year? There is an item of £220 in the Estimate for scientific investigation. The same amount was there last year. Scientific investigation cost us £40. Does that mean that there has been no scientific investigation? The sum I have mentioned does not suggest that very much is done in the way of scientific investigation. The same remarks apply to sub-head F (4)—scientific and technical investigation in regard to inland fisheries. The amount is £50 this year and it was £50 last year. Is this sum merely repeated year after year or is anything being done in the matter? The Minister may have made a slight saving since this Estimate was printed. Under sub-head E, there is a contribution of 10,000 Danish kroner to the International Council for the Study of the Sea. Will that sum be wanted at all?

Dr. Ryan

No, unless the war ends.

Mr. Linehan

I should like to direct the Minister's attention to a matter in connection with the inland fisheries. I do not know if he has heard about it before. Not being an expert fisherman, I myself do not know much about it. I have, however, heard a number of complaints—it is hard to understand why it should have happened—that many of the smaller rivers which were good trout-fishing streams are being destroyed by weeds. I do not know if the Minister has heard that complaint. I know a stream which, within my memory, was a good trout-fishing stream but which, during the last ten or 15 years, has been completely overgrown with weeds. There should be the same amount of water in the river as before but you could walk across the river at practically any point on weeds. Why that should happen in the last ten or 15 years, I do not know. But I know that stream from beginning to end and I know that that is the state of affairs. I have been told of other streams and I know some which are in the same state. I wonder if anything could be done by the Department, through the local angling associations, to clean up these rivers. If the present state of affairs is allowed to continue, the rivers will be useless so far as the ordinary trout angler is concerned.

Has the Minister seriously inquired into this question of the Lismore weir and is he quite satisfied with the position? Is he satisfied that every person and association angling for salmon in the River Blackwater are completely wrong and that they have merely got a type of complaint which they are going to repeat year after year. If the figures I heard of the amount of fish taken in that weir on the first run of salmon—the figures given to me were in tons—are correct, it is a terrible scandal that any company or any individuals should be allowed to take that amount of salmon out of the River Blackwater, even if these salmon were never to be obtained by the fishermen up the river. The sooner steps are taken to take these fisheries over for the benefit of the State or to hand them to the people who own the lands on each side of the river, the better.

Mr. J. Flynn

I have had occasion to approach the Minister with regard to the question of protection. We made representations to the effect that British trawlers had completely obstructed men engaged in the fishing industry at Ballinskelligs and Valentia. The reply we received was that the Department hoped to obtain the cooperation of the Department of Defence and provide protection. While admitting that efforts have been made to provide protection, there is still great neglect in regard to the whole matter. The Guards were consulted and verified the statements made by the fishermen, but still nothing was done about it. We are hoping that some of these boats that were to be provided by the Department of Defence and that we understood would be made available, will yet be utilised for the protection of the fishing industry along that coast. I make a special appeal to the Minister to provide some form of protection and to see to it that these trawlers will not, as in the past, detrimentally affect the livelihood of the people living along the coastline from Kenmare to Dingle.

We have hopes also that some measures will be taken with regard to the marketing of mackerel and other sea fish. We recently had the experience of glutted markets when the price went down from 25/- a cwt to 6/-. That happened inside a week or ten days. If some system as was suggested by Deputy Brasier had been in existence, I believe that type of thing could have been avoided. For instance, some depôts might be established and the Sea Fisheries Association could buy up fish, store them, and sell them at a later period. That would save the fishermen. I must say that the position at the moment is somewhat improved, but there was a period of three or four weeks when prices were very uneconomic. This matter should engage the attention of the Sea Fisheries Association with the object of assisting the people over particularly bad periods.

I have been asked to make representations about the provision of boats and gear. I must say that in this matter we have received every attention from the Minister's Department and we realise that the Sea Fisheries Association are doing exceptionally good work. However, with the limited funds at their disposal, they cannot meet the requirements of the people. Large numbers of people have applied for boats and gear within the last few months, but I fail to see how anything effective can be done by the Sea Fisheries Association because of the small amount allocated in this Estimate. I urge the Minister to increase the grant, if that is at all possible, so as to enable the association to meet in some adequate measure the large number of applications for boats and gear from the people in Valentia, Ballinskelligs and all along that coast.

I had occasion to make representations on behalf of men in those districts who are prepared to pay the necessary deposit and give the required securities, but I found that the association could not meet their requirements because of the lack of money. Actually, they would require three times the proposed amount in order to meet the increased demand. This is the most opportune time to help those people. There are great hopes prevailing that prices for fish in the very near future will reach a remunerative level and I suggest we should give these people every assistance so that they can avail of the opportunity that is being offered to make good after long years of lean prices and unemployment.

I do not desire to dwell too much on inland fisheries, but I should like to refer to one outstanding case of which the Minister is aware. I refer to the weir at Waterville. It is somewhat in the same position as the one referred to by Deputy Linehan. This weir that I have in mind is controlled by one man. Tons of fish have been taken there, to the detriment of the local fishermen and the proprietors of hotels in the district. When legislation was passed here recently in relation to the taking over of several fisheries throughout the country, we were told that these weirs would be the first consideration of the Department. This particular weir at Waterville is an obstruction inasmuch as the proprietor is giving no employment, and has a complete monopoly of the fishing industry in that area. There are scarcely any salmon getting to the upper reaches of the lake at Waterville. If we are serious in our efforts to develop inland fisheries, so that the ordinary people can derive some benefit from them, particularly in the way of employment, and if we are to make certain facilities available for tourists, we should do something with weirs of the type of the weir at Waterville.

I desire to pay a tribute to the Sea Fisheries Association for what they have done for us in Kerry. They have provided an excellent purification tank at Cromane, which is the first of its kind in this country and which, I believe, will be a credit not alone to our county but to the nation. They have done their utmost to assist the fishermen out of the meagre funds at their disposal. Whatever points I have made, they are offered in a helpful and constructive way. Perhaps the Minister might be induced to go a step further in order to meet our requirements.

Mr. Byrne (Junior)

Notwithstanding the best efforts of the Minister, there seems to be great dissatisfaction in the Dublin Fish Market and amongst the members of the Dublin fish trade, particularly with regard to supplies. They do not seem to be at all adequate and the prices still rule high notwithstanding the Minister's efforts to ensure a fair supply of fresh fish on the Dublin market at fair prices. On the 1st March of this year, on the occasion of the Supplementary Estimate, the Minister admitted that on occasions during the previous four months there had been a serious shortage of supplies and that prices had ranged high, that there had also been within the same period, occasions of gluts and surplus supplies with a consequent fall in prices. He said that similar conditions had obtained during the same period in Great Britain. To quote the Minister's words:

"However, we have now, I believe, passed the peak point of these difficulties here."

The Minister believed that on 1st March, 1940. I would ask him is he satisfied that steady improvement has been maintained and that we are now about to approach a period when there will be fair supplies at fair prices? On that occasion, too, replying to the debate, the Minister said that the Sea Fisheries Association were making a profit on the import of this fish. He said:

"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."

I would ask the Minister has improvement been maintained in that regard also? I complained at that time that they were making huge profits, and I think they still are making abnormal or unfair profits at the expense of the consumer.

There is another thing that I think this House should not let go unheeded, that is, the statement which was made at a recent meeting of the Sea Fisheries Association. One of their members alleged that the Dublin fish-mongers were making huge profits. That is not the case. The Dublin fish people, both in the retail and the wholesale line, have to work very hard for what they earn and I think it was very wrong for a member of the association to make that statement in public. That is all I have to say on the matter. I was merely anxious that the Minister should give the House an assurance that in future the consumer may have some hope of getting an adequate supply of fish at fair prices.

Mr. McMenamin

I think that almost everything that could be said has been said already on this matter. In the month of February last we had a review of this question in the House arising out of the position that then existed in the City of Dublin. We had a very close analysis of the position there and of the manner in which the Trawling Company were treating the public of this city. As another Lent will intervene before this Estimate arises again, I think it should be urged on the Department and on the Minister, here and now, that the matters that took place during last Lent will not recur next year. It is not necessary to go through the details of that except to give a summary of them. We had proof that the prices here were advanced as much as 200 per cent. over and above the prices prevailing at Billingsgate and at Grimsby on similar dates. We had an allegation made here and, so far as I remember, it was not contradicted then and it has not been contradicted since, that while fish was unpurchasable by the ordinary people in this city, a cargo of fish was sent by the Trawling Company here to be dumped at Liverpool at whatever price it would bring. That was done to maintain the price here. That was done by a Trawling Company that had got the absolute protection of the Minister. The Minister told us that they were a body of keen business men. There are many people in this country who consider themselves very keen if they can secure a monopoly of some kind or other and who, irrespective of how they are to behave towards the general public, determine that they are going to make profits, forgetting that there is a limit to the extent to which you can impose upon the public.

I hope that the trawling company to which the Minister gave a monopoly have learned a lesson from what took place in this city last Lent. The people had to give up buying fish, except tinned salmon that comes from the ends of the earth, from Alaska, California and Norway. It is caught, cured, tinned, labelled in those countries to be marketed here in Ireland, in a country where, as Deputy O'Neill said earlier this evening, practically no part is more than 50 miles from the sea. That is a commentary on how this industry is run here. It was nothing short of an outrage the way that company behaved here in this city during last Lent. If I had been in the Minister's place I would have immediately dissolved the authority and the protection that I had given them. I would teach a body of that kind one lesson. Even if I destroyed the capital of a company of that kind, it would be a warning to others, and nobody placed in such a position would repeat such an outrage upon the people. The poor people could not get any fish at all. There was practically no rough fish obtainable. The people could not buy the better classes of fish. They became so disgusted at the prices that were being asked week after week that they gave up buying fish.

This House has given a Grant-in-Aid of £10,000 to the Sea Fisheries Association for the development of this industry. I do not want to say anything unkind about that body. I daresay, in a loose and haphazard way, it is "lobbing" along as best it can, but it is a very poor lob. General complaints have been made in this House and, of course, everybody knows that you can live in a seaside town in this country where fish is landed on the little harbours in the morning and you could not get a lb. of fish for your breakfast or dinner. In practically no inland town in this country, if you went into any hotel or restaurant, could you get any fish for your dinner. Surely, if the Sea Fisheries Association wants to take charge of this industry, and purports to develop and organise it, it should take steps to see that, firstly, the fish are landed on our shores and, secondly, that they are distributed, but we might as well be an inland country so far as the obtaining of fish is concerned. It is said that the people in this country have no taste for fish. How would they have a taste for fish? You can go through rural Ireland and you will see nothing in the line of fresh fish from one week-end to another. The fish that does come in is imported for some hotel, mental hospital or county home, and it is supplied by contract. It arrives by train from Grimsby, from Billingsgate or somewhere else and is sent direct to the institution. The ordinary citizen never sees it.

Much has been said this evening by Deputies from south-western counties with regard to the mackerel industry. I should be very interested to hear something about the prospects of the herring industry because, so far as our coast fishermen are concerned, that was the heavy industry. What are the prospects for the immediate future, or are there any? All these inshore fishermen who have received boats and gear from the Sea Fisheries Association have to repay the cost of them. Are they being organised and instructed in such a manner as will enable them to go in for fishing for every class of fish so that they may make money, and, when they do bring in the fish, are steps being taken to secure that a market will be provided for it, at home or elsewhere? There is no use in men landing fish here if they are to lie on the quays, and no price is to be got for them, to enable these men to pay for the boats and gear they have got.

There are certain sums set down here in respect of investigation and development in regard to fish, but except what comes under the heading of hatcheries, it means nothing at all. I take it that all the hatcheries for inland fisheries mentioned here are for trout. Is that so?

Dr. Ryan

No, principally salmon.

Mr. McMenamin

Are they salmon hatcheries?

Dr. Ryan

Salmon and trout.

Mr. McMenamin

There are five altogether. Could the Minister say which are salmon and which are trout?

Dr. Ryan

Lismore, Glenties and Black Castle are for salmon; the others are for trout.

Mr. McMenamin

With regard to salmon, there has been a general complaint here as to want of rights to fish. You will get plenty of fishermen, but there is not much use in their getting a licence and a fishing rod if they cannot fish the rivers. It would be well if the Minister would take into consideration the fact that, under Fisheries Acts and Land Acts, he has taken over a number of rivers. I should like to know what steps are being taken to restock these rivers. Are men allowed to fish in the estuaries of these rivers under licence from the Minister each year, while no steps are taken by anybody to restock these rivers? For two reasons there will ultimately be a decline in the number, quality and weight of the fish in these rivers. They will become, as it were, outbred and will run out. On the other hand, with the intensive operations of the estuary fishermen, who will seek to make all the money they can, the fish will ultimately disappear.

We had an example from Deputy Linehan as to the number of tons of fish taken out of the river in his district, and if these fishermen find that the fish are running on a given day and so arrange the weirs and the nets as to scoop in practically all the fish coming into the estuary, that river ultimately is bound to become run out of fish. What steps is the Minister taking to restock these rivers? Even if there were not these abnormal catches, we must remember that the people fishing these rivers are doing so purely for business. They have to pay the Minister a very heavy licence fee, and it is up to them to get the maximum out of the estuary for the short time the salmon fishing is on, to scoop the pool, as it were, and not to let a solitary fish up the river. Hence it is incumbent on the Minister to attend to this matter at once. If he does not do so, the run of fish in these rivers in eight or ten years will have practically disappeared altogether.

A Deputy made an appeal on behalf of Lough Corrib and the Minister has offered to make a contribution of £15 in 1941 to the trout hatchery on Lough Corrib. I do not know what the Minister thinks about that, but I feel that it is an insult to these people. Anybody who knows anything about Lough Corrib knows that it is a national asset, and if it were in my constituency, I should have some very hard things to say to the Minister about his £15. County Galway is the best trout-fishing county in these islands. A body of men there spent £500, with £200 expenses, in building a hatchery. This sum of £15 is a very small matter because their real source of revenue was the Guinness family when they owned Ashford. I do not know much about it, but I take it that if any sum were required for the purpose of a hatchery and if somebody was able to make an approach to Lord Ardilaun, they would get whatever sum they required for such a purpose.

That has all disappeared now and these men—the Minister knows who they are—who, I understand, are in the neighbourhood of Oughterard, got together and erected this hatchery for £500. I think it was a very patriotic work and deserving of any encouragement this House can give. I understand that the facts are, that these men spent £500, plus £200 on incidental expenses, and the Minister offers a paltry sum of £15 in 1941. I ask the Minister to give sanction for that sum immediately and not to wait until 1941. Why 1941? Every year is vital in these matters. There should be a restocking each year of a lake of that kind and, indeed, I should like to see much more done with regard to the stocking of our good lakes from Donegal to Cork. There are many good little lakes and much more should be done in the matter of restocking them. The Department will get any assistance it wants from the House because I do not think this House will be in any way niggardly in dealing with a genuine reproductive work.

Nobody can foretell how long present conditions will last. It gives a great opportunity in regard to the inland fishing, particularly trout fishing. The Minister is aware that one of his colleagues has carried a measure through this House by which we contribute a capital sum of £500,000 plus an annual subvention of £40,000 or £45,000 to a board to invite strangers to this country as tourists. You will not get tourists wandering up and down the country to see the scenery; they will come to shoot or to fish, plus seeing the scenery. Hence if we are not giving the larger sum to this board it is incumbent upon us to give the smaller sum. We should give a larger sum if it is necessary, and as far as I am concerned I will gladly subscribe to the giving of any sum required.

The Minister offered £15 to the people at Lough Corrib but he gives £450 to the International Council for the Study of the Sea. What in the name of goodness do we get in the way of benefit from that council? The man who is engaged in sea fishing has to do the best he can and he never hears a word from the day he is born until the day he dies about the International Council for the Study of the Sea. I expect that that council does not say a word as to how to set a net to catch whiting, cod, mackerel or anything else; yet the Minister generously gives £450 a year to this body, while offering a miserable £15 to a body in the County Galway with the finest trout fishing lake in Europe. There is something wrong about that.

Regarding the advances for boats and gear, are we to take it that the reduction in the sum is to be attributed to most of the members engaged in sea fishing having been supplied with boats and gear or to the industry having declined in the same way as the herring industry? There is £5,000 for general development. Will the Minister say if that is for cold storage and if that money is being given to assist the Sea Fisheries Association with regard to storing fish during an interval, or is it that they are going to erect cold storage accommodation of their own at some central station?

There is £7,150 repayment by the Sea Fisheries Association. Is that to the Department and what is it for? Is it interest on the money? I understand that the advances given to the association were in the way of a Grant-in-Aid. Is the money advanced by the association advanced by the Department first and then distributed by the association to the people to buy boats and gear, and then paid back to the Department as distinct from the association? I am referring to sub-head H (5).

Dr. Ryan

As the Sea Fisheries Association collect instalments on boats, they are paid over to the Department. We give them the money in the first instance.

Mr. McMenamin

There is provision for £925 for State fisheries: wages of water keepers, etc. What are the duties of these men? Are they merely water keepers or do they act in a full-blown capacity in regard to these waters? Do they engage in the destruction of otters or in the restocking of the waters, and do they give a report as to the number of fish in the area at various seasons? If they do not do anything with regard to restocking, I think they should, and if there is a decline in the run of fish, steps should be taken to restock the rivers.

Mr. Fred Crowley

I wish to stress a point or two regarding inland fisheries. I am rather anxious that the Minister should put the section dealing with the lifting of nets in fresh waters into operation this year. I understand that, at the time the Bill was passing through the House, the Minister gave 12 months' grace to the net holders to sell their fishing gear, and I sincerely trust that at the end of this season the nets will be lifted on the fresh waters. There was another point which I overlooked at the time the Fisheries Bill was going through. It was left optional with the board of conservators whether they would give a £1 licence for sea trout and white trout during the month of August. If I had watched more carefully I would have pressed the Minister very hard to compel the board of conservators to give the local people the privilege to take out £1 licences for sea trout for the months of July and August as against £2 ones. I understand that some boards of conservators are allowing the £1 licence and others are not. I hope that in any future Bill which may be drafted, the Minister will realise the importance of inserting a clause making it compulsory on the board of conservators to issue £1 licences for July and August.

There is one other point, and I am glad that Deputy Linehan has raised it. Having taken a deep interest in the inland fisheries for the last 12 or 13 years, having had a good number of inquiries already in Killarney and having been connected with the Tourist Association with regard to inland fisheries, I speak as one knowing something about it, and I am fully satisfied that netting at the mouth of the rivers should be restricted. I ask the Minister to restrict the netting for the main reason that I do not think there are sufficient spawning salmon. I do not think the quantity of salmon in the rivers this year is anything like what it was 25 or 30 years ago. I ask that the netting be restricted, as it prevents the development of the salmon fishing. No man has a right to throw a net, much less build a weir, to prevent the salmon taking their natural course up the river. The only thing we can do, and I trust the Minister will see that it is done, is to restrict the netting in the estuaries, to take a day or a day and a night off the period allowed for netting. In that way we would enable sufficient salmon to go up the river for spawning purposes. I do not wish to say anything further in connection with inland fisheries, but, so far as sea fisheries are concerned, I would strongly urge the Minister to co-operate with the Board of Works with a view to seeing that the small piers which have been suggested by the Board of Works to accommodate people engaged in sea fishing should be constructed. I am particularly interested in Kenmare Bay. I understand that the erection of three or four piers has been suggested in that area. I know that similar piers have been constructed in Donegal and along other parts of the western coast, and I hope steps will be taken to provide these facilities in the Kenmare area.

Dr. Ryan

The first point raised in this debate was that mentioned by Deputy Brodrick in regard to the dumping of fish in Galway Bay. Deputy Brodrick was very indignant about that matter, and I suppose that to many Deputies, who do not know exactly the details, it might appear rather strange, seeing that there is a scarcity of fish in the country, that fish should be dumped in Galway Bay. The fact is that the fishermen on the western islands, the islands off the coast of Galway, are members of the Sea Fisheries Association, but they are not very loyal members, and they have had the habit for some time of selling their catches to a better buyer if they can get one. Occasionally, of course, they will get a better buyer than the association. In the same way a farmer will often get a better price by selling occasionally to an outside buyer than by sending his produce to his own co-operative society although he might, by sending to the co-operative society, do much better over the year. The same is true of the Sea Fisheries Association. Some of the members will take a better price from an outsider if they can get it. Then, towards the end of the week perhaps, they find that the outside buyer is not coming forward and they try to sell to the Sea Fisheries Association, from whom there is a guaranteed price. That is what happened in the case to which Deputy Brodrick referred. There was a delay in transporting the fish before it reached the Sea Fisheries Association and it would not hold over the week-end so that it had to be dumped. It was not the fault of the Department or the fault of the association. The only way to avoid occurrences of that kind is to ensure that the association will be more strict and drastic in dealing with its members, to get them to say to their members that unless they are willing to sell their fish at all times to the association, the association will not take it at all. As a matter of fact, it is the intention of the association to become more strict in that way, and they may have to make a very rigid rule on the subject.

A question was also raised about the Oughterard hatchery. The Oughterard hatchery was constructed without any reference to my Department. We were not consulted about it. The people who constructed it were under the impression that they could get money fairly easily. It is a very good job, I understand from my own inspectors. It was well done, and it will serve quite a useful purpose, but we did not get any application for a subscription or for help until our Estimates were prepared. Most of the moneys provided for under that particular sub-head in our Estimates is already promised. The hatcheries which are to receive grants are named in the Estimate—Lismore, Glenties, Black Castle, etc. Then there is an item of £75 for minor stations which has to be divided amongst a number of stations. They have been promised £15 for this year.

Mr. McMenamin

Have you not £450 available under another sub-head?

Dr. Ryan

Where?

Mr. McMenamin

For this International Council. That money will not be required now.

Dr. Ryan

I listened to a lot of nonsense from the Deputy when he was speaking. If he thinks I am talking nonsense now, perhaps he would listen to me. I say we were not asked for the money and we were not consulted about the building of the hatchery. The only thing we could do now would be to give them a grant of £15 out of the sum provided for minor stations. There seemed to be an extraordinary unanimity in the statements of the Deputies to the effect that we had promised this hatchery £15 for next year. It seems to me as if Deputies had been circularised to the effect that we had promised only £15 for 1941-42. We have promised them £15 for this year, and we will have to consider what we can give under this sub-head next year. I do not know whether we would be justified in giving them any more than £15, but if we think we would be justified in doing so, we may give them a larger grant next year.

Deputy Hickey spoke of the fact that mackerel were being sold from 3d. to 5d. each in Cork, while at the same time he said they were being dumped at Kinsale. Deputy O'Neill said that that was quite true, and gave us a correct explanation of the matter. Mackerel were selling at a very good price at the beginning of the season, but at one particular period there was a very big catch all along the coast. At the same time there happened to be a very big catch off England, particularly around Cornwall, with the result that the price of mackerel went down to almost nothing for a time. Although it is true to say that mackerel were selling at 3d. each in our towns, and that two or three days afterwards they were being dumped as being worth nothing, there is a natural explanation for that, namely, that there was a very big catch, with the result that there was a very big slump in prices within a few days. That is the sort of thing that cannot be provided against, especially in the case of mackerel, because, as Deputies will realise, if mackerel is not sold when it is fresh it is not palatable or even healthy. When I was down in Cork recently I promised to send an inspector down to the south coast to inquire into the mackerel-fishing industry in general. That is being done so that we shall have at any rate the benefit of this inspector's report. I was asked if he would go to the people who knew something about fisheries. I hope he will. Naturally, he will go to the county councillor who raised that question in Cork. If any Deputy would like him to call on any particular person we should be glad to hear from him.

Deputy O'Neill also raised the question of filleting mackerel and lightly salting them for packing. We have been studying that matter. I believe that method has been tried in America, and we have been studying it to see if we can organise the industry on the same lines. This summer we are providing for cold storage. We hope to try out the experiment and see if we can get a better market for our mackerel. Deputy McMenamin also referred to the prospect of finding a market for herring. Under present conditions I am afraid the prospects are not good, but conditions may change. I do not know if we can do something in the way of finding markets for herring or if we can keep them until matters improve, but I must admit that, generally speaking, the prospects for the sale of herring during the coming year are not too bright. There is no foreign market.

It is true to say that the Sea Fisheries Association has increased in numbers and that it has also increased its trade, that is, in fish marketed by the association itself. That is a very good sign. There has been a good deal of talk in this debate about the price of fish. The price of fish is undoubtedly higher than it was. In the first place, when we set out to control the imports of fish, we did so with the express purpose of securing for our inshore fishermen a better price for their catches. We came to the conclusion that the reason that the numbers of our inshore fishermen were decreasing was that they were not getting enough for their catches to keep them in business. The prices were bad. As well as that, they found it hard to market their fish at times. We tried to provide boats and gear for these men under very favourable terms. Now, it may be thought that it is rather hard to expect a man to put down a deposit in such cases, or to make him pay 5 per cent. on the money advanced, but taking it all round I think there is no country in the world where fishermen, on the whole, get such good terms as our fishermen get here with regard to the provision of boats and gear. As I say, we supplied them with boats and gear and with facilities for marketing their catches, but even then we thought that we had not done enough, and that we ought to make some provision for giving them a better price. In order to do that, we deliberately, if you like, raised the price of fish for the benefit of our own inshore fishermen when we brought in these restrictions with regard to the import of fish.

Apart from that, I think it should be obvious that our inshore fishermen would not be able to provide every variety of fish that might be required by the consumers at any particular season. For instance, there might be a plentiful supply of cod at one season, a plentiful supply of plaice at another season, and of herrings at another season, but there might not be the variety that our consumers would require in one particular season. Therefore, we had to have deep-sea trawling in order to provide that variety, and having arranged for that through the Deep Sea Trawling Company, we then set about the matter of controlling imports. I do not know whether the prices were unduly high, taking into account the fact that we wanted to give our inshore fishermen good prices. Here, however, is how the matter is regulated at the moment. The Sea Fisheries Association guarantees these fishermen a minimum price for their fish. These men send their fish up to the Sea Fisheries Association, and the association auctions the fish. If the price fetched is less than the guaranteed price, then they pay the fishermen the guaranteed price, and if the price fetched is more than the guaranteed price, then they pay the fishermen the guaranteed price, and if the price fetched is more than the guaranteed price, then they pay the fishermen more. In other words, if the market is good, the fishermen gets good prices, and if the market is bad he gets the guaranteed price at any rate. In addition to that, the association controls the imports of fish. Of course, if a man wanted to import fish in certain quantities in order to fulfil his contract with some such body as, let us say, the South Dublin Union, he would get a licence to import, and the association would have no control over that; and if the Sea Fisheries Association itself has to bring in a supply on contract, they supply that at whatever the price of the contract may be. I no not think, therefore, that there is profiteering anywhere that could be checked in any way. It was suggested by Deputy McMenamin, that we had this company in Dublin making a huge fortune out of this.

Mr. McMenamin

I did not say that.

Dr. Ryan

At least, the Deputy said that there was no check upon the prices they could charge, and so on. However, I happen to have the last balance sheet of that company up to October of last year—which shows that the net loss was £8,000 odd.

Mr. McMenamin

They were conducting their business in such a way that losses were bound to be incurred.

Dr. Ryan

Of course, if Deputy McMenamin were conducting the business, I suppose they would make a profit?

Mr. McMenamin

Can the Minister justify the fact that the price of a certain kind of fish went up a shilling a lb. in one week?

Dr. Ryan

It may have, and perhaps it went down by 1/6 the next week.

Mr. McMenamin

Bunkum.

Dr. Ryan

Oh, well, if the Deputy says "Bunkum", all I can say is: "The same to you." Deputy Moore raised the question of our oyster beds and said that our oyster beds are being neglected. Now, we have a feeling in the Department that there is something in that, but I think that the big trouble—which perhaps Deputy Mocre does not realise—is that our oyster beds suffer the same disabilities as oyster beds in most other countries in Europe. Oysters, unfortunately, are subject to infectious diseases, just like other animals, and it appears that our oysters are subject to a disease that has been rather prevalent during the last 15 years or so. By keeping certain oyster beds dredged and taking other precautions we are trying to get our oysters free from that disease, and we feel that within the last few years we are succeeding in that direction, but no matter what you may do, you cannot alter weather conditions or climate, or the salinity or salt content of the water, and these are also very important considerations in the rearing of oysters.

Deputy Brasier made a very interesting suggestion with regard to a floating factory. As a matter of fact, that proposition was put up to me a few years ago, and I thought it very interesting at the time. I did ask to have the matter considered at that time, but I cannot recollect what exactly were the objections to the scheme or why it was not carried out. However, I do mean to pursue the matter further now, because I think there should certainly be something in the idea, if it were feasible, of bringing your factory for, let us say, a month or two, to Cork, in a season when the fish would be plentiful there, and then bringing the factory to Galway for another month or two if fish were plentiful in that locality. However, I shall have the matter investigated again.

I am sure that Deputy Brasier is aware of the objection to giving loans for salmon nets. He knows what is the usual penalty for poaching for salmon out of season, and so on, and that is to seize the nets. Of course, if a quasi-Government institution such as the Sea Fisheries Association were giving loans on salmon nets, and if, at the same time, there was the likelihood that a district justice might have to give an order for the confiscation of these nets, the security for a loan would be very poor indeed. That is one of the troubles in that connection.

Mr. Brasier

If the salmon fishermen were to get security, would not that help?

Dr. Ryan

Well, we always find it terribly difficult. In the case of boats and gear we had securities, but even in these cases we found it very difficult to go after these people. Sometimes securities are not good marks, so to speak, but even where they are good marks, one feels that it is rather unfair to go after a person, who has secured a fisherman, for a debt like that and take the full amount from him. We did go after these people to a certain extent, but we seldom took the full amount, even though they might be able to pay.

Deputy Linehan mentioned the fees in connection with the Lismore estate. There are two questions in connection with that. One is the question of payment of fees to the estate, and that payment is made like an ordinary rent for the right to fish. If and when the State takes over that fishery, I am sure that the State will carry on the same system of charging a rent to anybody who wants to fish there, and I think it is the only way in which the State could recoup itself for any expenditure involved in taking the fishery over. The other matter in connection with the Lismore fishery was in connection with the weir. I am sure that Deputy Linehan knows that it is laid down under the Act how weirs must be dealt with, and I am having the Act put into force so far as that is concerned. Of course, there is bound to be some delay. If a weir is being examined, the report will come up in the ordinary way, and then there may be an appeal and so on, and accordingly the procedure is rather slow, but I assure the Deputy that the matter is not being lost sight of. I think that Deputy Linehan also said that we were not doing as much advertising in connection with fisheries as we do in connection with agriculture.

The Deputy must remember that, under sub-head G (2), a fairly substantial amount of money is provided, and that a good part of it is devoted to advertising and publicity. It is possible that some of our small rivers, so far as the fisheries go, are being destroyed by weeds. I do not know if we can do very much about that. Possibly my colleague here, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, on the next vote, might suggest something, or perhaps the Deputy may have some suggestions to make to him. If we hear of any particular river we will be glad to send an inspector down to see if there is anything wrong from the fishery point of view.

Deputy Flynn raised the question of protection. The protection of our rivers has been handed over to the Minister for Defence, and I think the work is being carried on very well. There may have been some little trouble in the beginning because some formalities had to be complied with as regards the appointment of patrol officers. Some legal difficulty of that sort arose, and that may have held up protection for some time during the transfer period. Now the patrol officers are out and working, and I think the work is being done very well. Deputy Byrne raised the question of supplies. I think that, at the moment, supplies are satisfactory. If any institution has been left without fish I should be glad to hear of it. I have already explained how this matter is being attended to. The Sea Fisheries Association have a complete monopoly, so far as the importation of fish is concerned. While that is so, I think I can say definitely that they have not refused any reasonable request put to them by a distributor. What I mean is that they have not what one would call a weekly or a monthly quota, but I can certainly say that if any distributor goes to the Sea Fisheries Association and says that he has to fill a contract and that home-caught fish are not available to enable him to do that, he will not have the slightest difficulty in getting a permit to bring in fish. The home-caught fish may be a bit dearer, but that cannot be helped. I do not think that our inshore fishermen are getting too much for their fish. I think it was Deputy McMenamin who said that he could show that prices here were 200 per cent. above the prices in Grimsby on certain days during last month.

Mr. McMenamin

I said during Lent.

Dr. Ryan

I have the figures, and if I had time I could go back and look over the prices. I may say, however, that my attention was drawn to the fact that prices were higher in Grimsby than they were here, and because of that I was being asked to permit fish being exported so that our fishermen could get the benefit of the good prices on the other side. At any rate, the prices at the time were shown to be much higher in Grimsby than they were here. It is true, of course, that you could pick out particular days which would suit either argument. With regard to the small rivers that are under the control of the Department, I have been asked what steps we are taking to restock them.

Mr. McMenamin

You have some large rivers, too, that are owned by the Land Commission.

Dr. Ryan

They are all subject to the fishery laws, and are protected as far as possible. Poaching is forbidden. In addition, there is the close season during which the fish can spawn. If that is attended to properly, there is no doubt but that it is much more effective than restocking, because, as the Deputy knows, if you let even a dozen salmon or trout up to spawn they will prove to be more useful than the putting into a particular river of one hundred thousand fry.

With regard to the question asked by Deputy Crowley, I am not sure if I can say definitely that the fresh water nets will be removed at the end of the season. There is some legal difficulty about that. I do not propose to go into it now. There is a section in the Act dealing with that, and we propose to bring it into operation as soon as we possibly can. I am not sure whether all the boards of conservators are giving this £1 licence on the 1st July. I have no control over the boards, but if Deputy Crowley would tell me of any particular instance we might be able to discuss the matter with the boards of conservators, and see if we could get all of them into line. We have power under the Act to restrict netting in the estuaries to a number less than what it was in some recent years. I forget at the moment what the number is. I think I can give this undertaking, that we would have to commence by stopping the fresh water netting to see what the effect of that was going to be, and then make an inquiry before going ahead with any restriction of the netting in the estuaries. That also would be a matter for inquiry. I would be glad to have the views of Deputy Crowley, or of anybody else, in relation to any particular river on that question. The last matter raised by the Deputy was that we should do what we could in my Department with regard to the provision of small piers for fishermen. We have always done our best in cases where we thought help of that kind was justified. If my Department can assure the Board of Works that there is justification for doing something to help the fishing industry in a district, then they are prepared to go ahead and examine the thing from their point of view.

Vote put and agreed to.