Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Apr 1942

Vol. 86 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 31—Fisheries.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £11,247 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar crioch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1943, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Iascach Mara agus Intíre, ar a n-áirmhítear Ildeontaisí-i-gCabhair.

That a sum, not exceeding £11,247 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1943, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

The main feature of this Estimate is the substantial reduction which the sum of £16,747 set down for the year 1942-43 shows by comparison with the figure of £33,712 voted for the preceding financial year. This relatively large decrease will be readily understood if Deputies will turn to page 137 of the Estimates Book and will follow me in simple explanation. The reduction or saving of £930 on the administration sub-heads arises from some rearrangements in staff personnel. The reduction of £2,590 on the Sea Fisheries sub-heads arises as to £2,500 from the fact that provision for the special insurance of certain steam trawlers is not being renewed, because the owners of these vessels did not see their way to comply with the conditions proposed to them for the grant of such assistance.

The reduction on the Inland Fisheries sub-head is £6,040 gross, of which £6,000 represents a special item of ex gratia compensation in connection with the Erne fisheries which was voted and paid last year but against this gross reduction of £6,040 there is an increase of £520, of which £500 is attributable to a rise in the sum set down to meet the claims of local authorities consequent upon the operation of the rating provisions of the Fisheries Act, 1925. I have more than once explained that if the loss of rates formerly derived by these authorities from the fishery assessments (now payable to the conservators) amounts in the aggregate to more than one penny in the £ spread over a local authority's poor rate income, then such excess has to be made good from the Fisheries Vote. These annual payments, which are made in response to the sealed requisition of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, have been showing an upward trend; hence this increased provision that is now being made in the Estimate.

Coming now to the Sea Fisheries Association sub-head we find a total reduction of £5,500, and the reasons for this are as follows. There is put down for development work the sum of £2,000 against £3,000 last year, because owing to the increasing difficulties in obtaining gear and other requisites the present or immediate future is not considered a good time for experimental operations. At sub-head G (3) the amount provided for the supply of boats and gear on hire-purchase terms is down by £4,000 for much the same reason; the directors of this association had borrowed rather heavily from the Exchequer in the years 1939 and 1940 during which advances of more than £27,000 were made to the association, and invested largely in the purchase of stocks of gear and general equipment against the shortage of such materials which now prevails. This was clearly a prudent policy, and, naturally, when they cannot purchase such things in any quantity now, the directors do not wish to burden their members with interest on further borrowing beyond the bare minimum. The reduction of £500 on sub-head G (4) is explained by the fact that no structural work of any consequence could with advantage be undertaken by the association in the conditions likely to obtain during the coming year.

In former years I have often had to meet criticism from Deputies who complained that nothing was being done by way of development or improvement of our fishing industry that was at all commensurate with the amount of money voted for this service; and I have consistently maintained that neither I nor my Department could undertake the physical side of fishing, and have pointed out that our responsibility ended when we had done our best to provide those engaged upon it with the means of carrying on their work. While, therefore, not proposing to claim direct credit now for the phenomenal improvement which our sea fishing industry has shown for the year 1941 as compared with previous years, it is right to say that our persistent support of the Sea Fisheries Association throughout the lean and apparently hopeless days has contributed largely to this satisfactory outcome. Let me quote these few figures. The total value of our landings of sea fish in 1938 was £167,000, and in 1941 it was £548,000. The figures of quantity are, in one respect at least, even more remarkable. During 1939 when there were in commission nine steam trawlers that made in all 259 trips, our people landed a total of 188,000 cwts. of sea fish, whereas during 1941 with only three such steam trawlers making between them 102 trips, we landed 276,000 cwts, of sea fish—showing clearly how well our inshore fishermen have risen to the occasion and availed themselves of the only opportunity that has offered during a period of years of making a decent living for themselves and their families.

These good earnings have had the satisfactory result of reducing considerably the arrears due to the Exchequer by the Sea Fisheries Association in respect of the earlier advances made for the supply of boats and gear. Such repayments prior to 1941 had been in or about £5,000 per annum, but during that year just £21,000 was repaid to the Exchequer. Our inland fisheries also prospered both as to quantity and value during the year 1941; and the turnover for sea and inland fisheries combined amounted to more than £1,000,000. We must not, of course, forget that there may be serious troubles ahead in the matter of supplies, not only of engines, nets, ropes and other gear, but also with regard to fuel oils; at the same time it is pleasant to record this spell of prosperity, such as it is.

I do not think I need say much about the items comprised in sub-head H by way of Appropriations-in-Aid; they are virtually self-explanatory. It will be noted, however, that the sum estimated by way of repayment from the Sea Fisheries Association in the financial year 1941-42 was £7,375, and while (as I have already mentioned) there actually came in from that source just £21,000, the directors are not quite so optimistic about the results for the coming year. At the same time the sum of £10,000 mentioned in the Estimate is about twice the average receipts for the five years prior to 1941.

In conclusion, I would mention that the Directors of the Sea Fisheries Association have continued to display special interest in the needs of their members resident within the Gaeltacht. This is shown by the fact that during the two calendar years 1940 and 1941 boats and gear on hire-purchase to the value of £17,000 were provided for the Gaeltacht. These facilities included 11 motor boats, 21 unengined craft, while 10 engines were installed in existing hulls. No less than 1,083 fishing nets and 121 coils of rope were also supplied to members resident within the Gaeltacht.

Mr. F. Lynch

The Minister referred to the difficulty of obtaining certain supplies, especially kerosene. Another thing that is causing a great deal of difficulty for fishermen is the scarcity of cording for the repair of mackerel, herring and salmon nets. I understand the position with regard to getting in supplies of that commodity is improving. After all, the fish caught here help largely to add to the food supply of Britain, and if that were put strongly to the people on the other side we might be able to obtain larger supplies. I do not know what the position will be with regard to kerosene for the fishing boats. I am being deluged with complaints as to the inadequacy of the amount available for fishermen along the Kerry coast, and I presume other Deputies also have had representations made to them. As far as I can find out, the last ration has been cut by 50 per cent. The cut is so severe that the actual time fishermen are able to spend out fishing has been shortened considerably. Some people have put up the case to me—I do not know if their complaints are well-founded—that during the last war, when there was no control until about 1918, greater facilities in the way of the provision of boats and gear was made for the ordinary fisherman. I am not quite sure whether that is so or not. There may be some substance in it. At the moment, if the ordinary fisherman is unable to put up the required deposit he is pretty well out of it. It has been suggested to me that other people who are not real fishermen at all—fish merchants and others in the fishing localities—since they are able to make the required deposit, are getting in as members of the Association and, in that way, taking the place of actual working fishermen. In the past our object was to see that the practical fisherman was himself made the owner of his own vessel. I am informed that at the present time, in many cases, the vessels are being given to persons who are able to put down the deposit even though they are not practical fishermen themselves.

I believe that the purification tank at Cromane has been a very great success, and that the industry there has shown a very good profit during the past season. I wonder if the Minister has considered the possibility of a similar plant at Mornington. Perhaps that question would come more fittingly from one of the Deputies from County Louth, but the fact is it has a very considerable interest for the fishermen at Cromane, because, I understand, some mussels have been getting out of the country which really were not fit for human food and were being sold as such on the British market although the licence was only for their export for bait. If that were true it would, of course, react against the purified mussels from Cromane and lead to the possibility of the markets at Birmingham and Nottingham, where they are usually disposed of, being completely closed down against them. From the point of view of Cromane it would be a very good thing if there was a purification plant established at Mornington which is a very big centre of the mussel industry. The Minister might consider if expenditure on it could be entertained at the present time.

These are the only matters I want to deal with. Some Deputies, I am sure, will want to speak about the fixed price of salmon. I do not suppose anything better could have been done by way of getting a higher price. The principal market for salmon is across the channel, and if the people there fix the price I do not know what we can do about it. I take it that the matter was fought as hard as it could be. It must be said that the price fixed is a bit low, especially from May on when it will be 2/6 per lb. That may have the good effect of putting more salmon on the market here. I am particularly interested to hear from the Minister if larger supplies of cording for mackerel, herring and salmon nets are likely to be obtained, as well as of kerosene, and of petrol for priming the engines.

Mr. Broderick

Deputy Lynch referred to the interest in this matter. He covered most of the facts with reference to the deep sea fisheries. Then he came to the price fixed for salmon and said that he believed the best that could be done was done, and that it may have the effect of placing more salmon on the market. What I am concerned with is the interests of the fishermen. After going to an expense of about £110, if you include a boat, and the expense of paying labour and risking their lives to catch fish, it seems extraordinary that they are only to get 4/- a lb. for salmon, less the cost of transit, etc. and, after May next, a price of 2/6 a lb. which, with the transit cost, will leave them with less than 1/- per lb. The advantage to the home market will hardly compensate these fishermen who go to such trouble to catch fish.

Let us see what happened. At the opening of the season catches were exceptionally good, and the price was extremely attractive. In many cases the fishermen got 6/- and 7/- a lb. for the salmon. Suddenly a complete alteration took place. The Government took steps to create a central organisation. Now the fishermen are debarred from exporting their fish themselves, or through a local merchant, and have to send the fish through a central organisation. I do not suppose there would be any great disadvantage in that if it were not for the fact that the price was immediately reduced from 6/- or 7/- a lb. to 4/- a lb., less the cost of transit, which is about 2/- or 2/2 a lb. Then they are faced with a still further reduction in May. The fishermen do not understand the reason for that when salmon is being retailed in England at 17/6 a lb. They are wondering whether the Government did their best to get them a good price or whether they made any effort to get a better price than that. If they knew that such an effort was made they would have some feeling of satisfaction. I wonder if these prices cannot be improved. If not, there is a possibility that salmon fishing will come to an end altogether in this country.

I should like the Minister to explain the position to the House and try to reconcile the retail price of 17/6 in England with what the fishermen here are to get. Taking into consideration the expenses which they have to bear in fitting out their boats and the risks they run, I do not think such a small price can be justified. A strenuous effort will have to be made to increase the price if at all possible. Any advantages to the home market or to the people who can enjoy the luxury of eating salmon will not compensate the fishermen who have to undergo such hardships and such expenditure in order to catch the fish. In the interests of those fishermen I hope the Minister will tell us what the prospects are when he is replying.

Mr. McMenamin

The statements made do not hold out much prospect for the fishing industry, particularly that of salmon fishing. I was somewhat deceived myself when these negotiations were going on. I understood that the British Minister for Food had fixed the price for salmon in England and thereby of course, fixed the price here. When I read a report in a local paper that at a meeting of the conservators in Donegal Deputy McDevitt stated that salmon was being retailed in England at 17/6 a lb.—I take it the Deputy had verified these figures—it struck me that "a quick one" had been put across this country and the Government in fixing the price up to May at 4/- a lb. and thereafter at 2/6. It appears now that the price of salmon has not been fixed in Great Britain. I think people in this country, including the fishermen, were under the impression that the price fixed here was due to the fact that the price was controlled in Great Britain. If the statement made by Deputy McDevitt and also the statement of Deputy Broderick are true I think there should be a direct approach made to Lord Woolton, the Minister for Food in Great Britain, to point out to him the inequity of this, and that if our fishermen are to provide food for the English people the question of price should be reopened. That is all the more necessary when you consider the fact that the equipment these men have to use has either gone up considerably in price or is unprocurable. Through their own efforts certain fishermen are getting in some equipment.

I do not know how they are getting it, but they probably have to pay an exorbitant price for it. Ultimately they will be driven out of business if they have to pay these increased prices. for gear, oil and engine parts, if they can get them. It is really monstrous in these circumstances if our fishermen are only getting 4/- a lb. less the cost of telegrams, freight and commission. I do not think these charges come to the figure Deputy Broderick mentioned. I do not know what the exact figure is, but it would hardly bring the price of salmon down to 1/- per lb. after May. In view of the retail price of salmon in Great Britain, I think the price here is grossly inequitable and unfair.

With regard to the industry generally, the supply of gear, twine, ropes. nets and fuel presents a very serious problem. Deputy Lynch said he understood that some equipment would be made available, that owing to the fishermen here producing food for Great Britain they are disposed to release some equipment to supply these men. If that is so, I think a survey should be made of the entire fishing industry here, and an estimate prepared as to the amount which would be necessary to cover, let us say, three years' equipment. If that equipment can be procured, it should be procured at once.

There is also another suggestion which I want to make, because I like in business matters of this kind to take time by the forelock, I hope for the best, but I assume the worst. It is quite possible, it is even probable, that there may be no crude oil or kerosene available for those boats, and it would be prudent to tell the fishermen of this State that where it is possible to do so they should equip their boats with sails. It may mean heavier labour and a return to the old way of fishing, but the old way is not always the worst way. The new way is easier; you simply put your finger on the self-starter and away goes the boat, but I think our fishermen should be told that it is possible and even probable, owing to world conditions, that the quantity of fuel available for them will be practically worthless for the continuous running of their boats, and that consequently they should equip those boats with sails if it is possible to procure the cloth. With the exception of the very small yawls, practically all the boats are equipped with engines, and it may well be that, at quite an early date, there will be no fuel available for those boats at all. As a matter of fact, the allocation for the present month is not at all adequate.

The consequence of that will be that those men, hit by one adverse factor after another, will ultimately be driven completely out of the fishing industry. That would be a real tragedy from the national point of view, because present world conditions —particularly conditions in Great Britain, herself engaged in a life and death struggle, and, I take it, the great majority of her trawlers being used for mine sweeping—would give a golden opportunity not only to the present generation of fishermen, that is the older men, but an opportunity for them to train the younger generation to follow them in their industry.

I think it was Deputy Lynch who rather regretted the fact that private capital, that is to say, capital other than that of the boat owners, was being invested in the industry. As a matter of fact, one of the regrets I have always had with regard to the fishing industry in this country was that private capital was not invested in it. One of its handicaps was that except what came from private funds in the old days of the Congested Districts Board, and, since the establishment of the State here, from public funds, no private capital was invested in the industry at all, and the fishermen themselves have to struggle to put down deposits and pay instalments on their boats. During bad periods in the industry, those men were unable to pay their instalments, and ultimately the boats went to loss. They generally had to give securities, and those securities were mulcted, with the result that nobody would go security for the fishermen. It would be a good thing if a lot of the money invested in foreign industries, which ultimately go up the spout, were invested in our own fishing industry here to buy some trawlers and boats of all kinds. It is rather a sad commentary on our position now, when there is an opportunity to lay the foundations of a big fishing industry here, which would be a real asset to the nation, that there is not enough timber available in this country to build a dozen or two dozen boats. Of course our fishing fleet, taking it on the whole, is nothing at all in comparison with what it should be, seeing the enormous coast line we have and the great potentialities of this industry.

Instead of regretting the investment of private capital in it, I should like to see millions of pounds being invested in it, as happens in Great Britain. Take, for example, all those great trawling companies; they are the creation of private capital. Looking at it as a major industry, capable of producing an amount of food and wealth for this country, it never can be kept alive out of the resources of the individual fishermen around our coasts. That is why the industry is in such an impoverished condition.

Let me summarise the main facts. I think the Food Controller in England should be approached with a view to reopening this question of the price of salmon. I am quite sure that a man like Lord Woolton, occupying the position that he does, would see the injustice which is being done in that regard and would fix a more equitable price. Secondly, I think the Department or the Sea Fisheries Association should impress upon the fishermen the necessity for equipping their boats with sails if sail cloth can be procured. With regard to ropes, twine, netting and other equipment, I do not know what quantity is on hands, but I hope the Sea Fisheries Association has made provision for a considerable quantity to cover a period of four years, and that it will not happen, as in the case of other supplies which we thought we had here, that when a crisis comes it will be found they are not there. I hope there is some Department of State that can see beyond its nose and do its duty.

Mr. Corish

As has been indicated by other Deputies, great dissatisfaction prevails in regard to what is considered by the fishermen to be the low price paid for salmon this year, especially in view of the fact that the cost of the equipment necessary for their boats has been increased enormously. That, in conjunction with the hazardous nature of their occupation, would warrant the payment of a higher price for salmon this year. The fishermen hope that the Minister will again make representations to the British Government with a view to securing that a proper price will be paid. The price at the moment is bad enough, but, when it comes to 1st May and the lower price of 2/6 is paid, I am afraid there will be very few fishermen who will interest themselves in procuring fish. We were discussing subsidies some time ago, and I may say that I think the position would warrant the payment of a subsidy to fishermen, seeing that they are not able to procure an economic price on the British market. Subsidies are being paid to farmers and various other people in the country. Nobody begrudges the subsidies that are being paid to the farmers; it is necessary to pay them in order that they may secure an economic price for their produce, but a case could also be made for the fishermen in this particular instance, because something should be done by way of supplementing the price paid by the people on the other side of the water.

What I really stood up to say was that applications have been made to the Department of Supplies by fishermen in various parts of the country for an extra supply of tea. As the Minister knows, the fishermen are absent from their homes for periods of at least ten to 12 hours, and, owing to the fact that in their households each person receives only half an ounce of tea per week, it is impossible for them to bring any tea with them. I ask the Minister to make representations to the Department of Supplies with a view to securing that these men's application will receive some consideration. The Minister knows the Wexford constituency, and he knows that in a great many cases the fishermen live a good distance away from the banks of the Slaney, with the result that they are away from their homes for the whole day. Now that the application has been made by the fishermen in County Wexford, I exhort the Minister, knowing the situation as he does, to try to secure that these men will be given an extra supply of tea.

Mr. Bartley

I was interested in the remarks of Deputy McMenamin about the investing of private capital in the fishing industry. I have held that view for a long time. I think it would be a very good test of how far the subsidising of the industry ought to go, and particularly in regard to power-boat fishing. I believe that the total number of power-boats necessary to supply our own requirements of fish would not be large, and I do not think it would be advisable to formulate plans for the future on the presents condition of the industry. Just as in the last war, the industry is prospering now and has readily adapted itself to the conditions which the war brought about. There are good prices and the fishermen are fishing industriously and in a number of cases with which I am acquainted, the fishermen were ready to put down a very substantial deposit —people I thought would not be able to do so at all.

The industry seems to have been able to finance itself fairly well when prices became good. I do not think the home market would justify huge expenditure at all, although I certainly think the small inshore man does require special consideration and should get it from the Government, particularly on the poorer parts of the coast. If it were merely a case of supplying our own requirements of fish, I think the obvious thing to do, now that we are establishing something in the nature of a marine, would be to equip that marine with boats which could be used for fishing and to put whole-time fishermen at the job. I suggest that young men be trained to it.

The matter of salmon has been discussed throughout the country. I had intended to make a complaint on behalf of fishermen who used to have the right of drift-net fishing for salmon in Galway Bay, but it seems to me that salmon fishing at present is not an industry about which people are enthusiastic, owing to the small price, but it is no harm to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that this right existed. I would remind him that some years ago when he introduced his Fisheries Bill, one of the things it did was to make the establishment of several fisheries easier, or at least to make the establishment of a claim to a several fishery much easier. As a counter-blast to that, we were promised by the Minister that the boards of conservators would be brought under more democratic control.

Great inroads have been made by the owners of several fisheries, that is, by boards of conservators which are dominated by the owners of several fisheries, on the rights of the ordinary individual, and particularly the ordinary angler. We had a recent case in Galway in which the Minister made an order defining the tidal water mark on the Corrib, and this was evidently quite easily upset with the help of the Fisheries Act when the matter was brought to the High Court. It is strange to see a claim made that it is necessary to prevent men from drift-net fishing for salmon in a wide expanse of water like Galway Bay, when the people who make that claim are freely allowed to take all the salmon, they can in narrow waters like the Corrib and the Spiddal rivers. What takes place in those rivers is nothing short of slaughter. We all know that only one salmon in a hundred is taken in a drift-net.

There are other indications, particularly in the west, of the hostility of these boards of conservators to the ordinary angler and particularly to organised anglers like the Galway and Corrib Anglers' Association. This association spent a good deal of its own money on the erection of a hatchery in Oughterard, and after a great deal of trouble they got a small grant from the Department. Last year they asked for further facilities in the way of being allowed to take trout in an extra river—the Farrimer river in Gleann, Oughterard. This reasonable request was refused by the Department at the instigation, I presume, of the Board of Conservators. This river has an abundant supply of trout, but the natural spawning is interfered with very much by salmon coming up to spawn, and also by pike at the entrance to it. This association last year put 400,000 fry into Lough Corrib. They spread them all over the lake and could have put in another 100,000 if they were allowed to use the Farrimer river.

I think this attitude on the part of the conservators should be checked by the Department. It is really tantamount to resentment against anybody, other than themselves, presuming to have any say in the matter of fishing and the development of fishing. They are primarily interested in salmon and, apart altogether from the purely sporting angler's interest, there is the tourist point of view. If there were not trout fishing in the Corrib, which is the largest free fishing in the country, there would not be any great attraction to the visiting angler. That really is the attraction on the Corrib, and if there were no anglers' association there at all, it is a first duty of the Board of Conservators to see that trout fishing is promoted.

The boards also have the duty of cleaning certain rivers—rivers that are good breeding grounds for trout—and to my knowledge these rivers have been left to the care of the anglers' association who have had to provide their own money for cleaning them. They have done this, although the Board of Conservators gets a grant every year from the Department of Fisheries for that, I presume, amongst its other duties. Seeing that the Minister went so far to preserve the rights of the owners of several fisheries, and even went so far as to compensate the owners who were not able to establish their claim, as happened in the case of the Erne fishery, I think the Minister should implement his promise with regard to the control of boards of conservators and should try to make these boards more democratic in their composition.

We all know some of the methods—at all events we know one of the methods —by which control is exercised; for instance, by purchasing licences either for employees or fictitious persons and thereby securing a majority of votes at the meetings for election of boards. The proceedings of these boards are carried out in a very hole-and-corner method. Apparently there is no publicity, and nobody outside is aware of what goes on at them. Indeed, it is very difficult to find out who are the members. If there is a right of private ownership claimed in relation to fishing, the Minister and the Department ought not allow it to be subject to such grave abuses as have taken place. I wonder if it would be possible to justify such right at all. The ordinary man in the street, at least in my constituency, is becoming very interested in this matter, and I am taking advantage of this opportunity to voice his feelings about it.

Mr. Coburn

I notice the Minister made no reference to the mussel industry, at least so far as the erection of a purification tank is concerned. This matter of the erection of a purification tank has been brought to the notice of the Department for the last five or six years. The people engaged in the mussel industry were hopeful that a tank would be erected. The Minister, I am sure, was very interested in the remarks of Deputy Fionan Lynch, when he spoke of the great advantage gained by the erection of a tank on the Kerry coast—how useful it is to the men engaged in the industry in that region. This year the mussel industry was a big boon to many people, especially around the ports of Dundalk and Drogheda.

The Minister is aware that, due to the fact that there have been no coal cargoes for some considerable time, the earnings of dock labourers and others engaged in port work were very small. I may say that these were considerably augmented when those men engaged in the mussel industry. I think the price per ton ranges from £4 to £6. Where there were five or six boats, and where it was possible to raise 15 to 20 tons a week, it was undoubtedly a great boon to the workers, especially during a very lean period. There are great numbers of men engaged in this industry along the river Boyne. It is a matter of indifference to me where the tank will be erected, so long as it is erected on a part of the coast where it will serve equally the interests of the Dundalk, the Drogheda and the Carlingford men.

The cost of erection should not be prohibitive and the procuring of necessary materials should not present any great difficulty. As a matter of fact, the main materials used in the erection of a purification tank would be cement, sand and gravel, and these are easily procurable in the area. Indeed, there is a very fine selection of sand and gravel in the locality. The cement can easily be obtained at the Drogheda factory. I hope the Minister will give this matter his very serious consideration, particularly as the times through which we are passing do not look very bright from the point of view of employment generally. This little industry has, I may say, provided a nice steady income for many people during the last four or five months, the months that really count, because they were the severe winter months.

The price of salmon has been very widely discussed by the fishermen. Deputy Walsh and myself attended a very large meeting of fishermen in Drogheda, men who fish the Boyne. These men expressed very keen disappointment at the price that has been fixed for salmon. The price is 4/- per lb. from February to May. That price was not too bad, but they think that the price of 2/6 per lb., commencing in the month of May, is too low. In fact, when certain deductions are made, I think the net price works out at 1/8 to 1/10 per lb. I think the factors retain 7d. or 8d. per lb. to cover transport charges, insurance, etc.; at least, that is what the fishermen stated at the meeting. Their disappointment was all the more keen because they had an intimation from the Department that the price would not be fixed without first consulting them. Now they say the price was fixed behind their backs. That is the information they gave us, and I should like the Minister to say whether that is the fact. I think some effort should be made to have the price, particularly the price commencing in May, increased. I understand that last year the price for salmon was 2/6 to 3/- per lb. from May onwards.

I should like to mention that fishing for salmon does not start properly in Dundalk Bay until May, so that the present price of 2/6 will be the starting price for them. I think the Minister should reconsider this question of the price of salmon and take into consideration what is paid for the fish in England. The position here becomes far worse when one considers that salmon is sold across the water from l0/- to 13/- per lb. and it has been stated here that the price went as high as 17/6. The price paid in the British market is such as should enable the fish merchants here to give a bigger amount to the men who catch the salmon. I hope the Minister will reopen this matter with the object of having the price increased.

Several Deputies referred to the important matter of gear. That is a matter which possibly would present a little more difficulty to the Minister and his officials. All the material for gear, for nets, has of necessity to be imported. The Minister might be able to come to some agreement with the British so that a sufficient amount of cord and the other things incidental to the making of nets could be imported, so enabling the fishermen to carry on their work. Many of the men who fish around Dundalk are very short of gear and it is a question whether some of them will be able to fish at all this year. Even if they do start with whatever gear they possess, it is questionable whether they will be able to continue should anything happen to their nets. I should like the Minister to do all he can to obtain supplies of gear for those men.

Dr. Ryan

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.