A number of matters were raised on this Estimate and, as far as possible, I propose to deal with them. Deputy Lynch spoke about the success which the mussel cleansing plant at Cromane, County Kerry, had been and he suggested that we might consider the set ting up of another plant at Mornington. Deputy Coburn also referred to the question of providing additional plant. That point has been raised from time to time by other Deputies. Deputy Coburn said that it would not take long to erect the plant as there should be no great difficulty in procuring sand and cement. The facts are that the Cromane plant has been operating successfully during the past two years. It has been successful in turning out mussels in a healthy condition and it has also been financially successful. The capital outlay was very considerable, when compared with the turnover, and we had to make substantial additions to it during the two years. It is rather soon to come to a definite conclusion as regards the plant or to proceed to erect more plants of that kind. We were fortunate, perhaps, in coming in at this particular time because prices for mussels, as for other fish, had considerably improved and that added to a great extent to the success of the plant at Cromane. It is not true that we have all the materials available for a plant of this kind because certain equipment has to be purchased, apart from building materials—sand and cement—and the price of these things has gone up considerably. If the capital cost were to be increased very much, it would take a long time to repay it. On the whole, I think we should wait for, at least, another year before deciding to erect a second plant at Mornington or anywhere else. I may tell Deputy Coburn that there would be a considerable amount of delay. From the time we decided to erect the plant at Cromane until its completion, about two years elapsed. The making of plans and specifications and the obtaining of the necessary plant and equipment would be rather tedious. It is not work that could be done in a few weeks or even in a few months.
Deputy Lynch referred to the way in which fishermen were handicapped by lack of nets and other gear. The difficulty so far experienced in obtaining nets is the great variety of nets which are, of necessity, in use. There are various types, differing as to materials, shape and general make-up. On that account, it was quite a while before the Department of Supplies could get any sort of comprehensive memorandum prepared. They have now succeeded in getting this material together and they have put the position to the authorities in Great Britain, with a request for certain of these supplies and for the necessary export licences. The whole matter appears to be, at least, in train now and, while we cannot assume that our wants will be fully met, I think there is ground for being hopeful of getting some of these supplies.
Deputy Corish mentioned the question of a special ration of tea for fishermen. Where fishermen are out overnight, the Department of Supplies have granted them a tea ration but they have not granted a tea ration to fishermen who go out only a short distance and come back within a few hours. I am afraid that that does not really cover what Deputy Corish has in mind but, on the other hand, I think it is a reasonable enough ruling by the Department of Supplies. If Deputy Corish has any further representations to make to that Ministry, I shall be glad to support them if they are reasonable. Deputy McMenamin contended that our fishing fleet was not all it might be, either as to number of vessels or its total catching capacity. The Deputy is probably right in that to a certain extent but, whatever our fishing fleet may be now, it is certainly many times better than it would have been had matters been left to individual initiative during the past few years.
The Sea Fisheries' Association has put into commission more than 130 power boats and some hundreds of sail and oared craft and has maintained that fleet with the necessary gear. We can assume from that that, if the Sea Fisheries' Association had not been operating, things would not be nearly as good as they are. I do not say that some of these boats might not have been got through private initiative, or in some other way, but Deputies will agree that all of these boats would not have been got but for the efforts of the association. Deputies know that the terms of repayment are very convenient. Repayment depends upon the actual earnings of the fishermen so that in the bad times they repay a comparatively small amount while in the good times they repay large amounts. In the last year, 1941, 26 boat owners repaid completely loans outstanding to the association.
The Deputy also spoke of the need of providing sails for our fishing boats. The Deputy had in mind that, while many of our fishermen have at the moment fuel oil for propelling their boats, the time might come when fuel oil would not be available and he urged that we should keep in mind the alternative of sails. That has not been overlooked by any means and, if the Sea Fisheries' Association have to find alternatives for fuel oil, they will be in a position to do something in the matter. I do not say that they will be able to provide an alternative as satisfactory as fuel oil but, at least, something will be done. Deputy Bartley mentioned the desirability of having our sea fishing industry developed on commercial lines, as is the case in other countries. I completely agree with Deputy Bartley in that desire. On many occasions, in the Dáil and elsewhere, I have appealed to commercial men with money to consider the possibility of investing some of their money in a trawler fleet. If they had done so, I think they would now be getting good returns. As a matter of fact, I have not got by me the figures of the Dublin Trawling Company for the last two years, but I am quite satisfied that the results for those two years have been satisfactory.
Another matter which Deputy Bartley mentioned concerns the several fisheries. Deputy Bartley thought that, as a result of recent legislation, we had put the owners of these several fisheries in a better and more stable position. That is not true. As far as that Bill went, it only tended to ensure that when the State takes over the interests of any of these private holders in the fisheries the title of the State could not thereafter be questioned by a member of the public and that the fishery would go on being worked by the State, for the State, without let or hindrance. It does not in the meantime in any way alter the title of these people. It is true, as Deputy Bartley pointed out, that we actually paid compensation to certain people whose ownership was held by the court to be defective but, even so, that does not alter the position that I have already outlined, that we have in no way strengthened the position of these several fishery owners.
The Deputy also complained that some enterprising people in his constituency, who had by their own efforts set up what I freely acknowledge to have been a very satisfactory fishery hatchery, were not being accorded as much assistance as was due to them. That is a matter, perhaps, in which the House generally would not be very interested. A good deal of correspondence has taken place on that point between the Department and those concerned. It really centres around a permit which was sought by these people for the capture of spawners in a certain river. That permit was refused. I would like to assure Deputy Bartley that the decision to refuse the permit did not rest at all with the wishes or the advice of the local board of conservators. They did, naturally, offer their observations, which were taken into account, but I would like to say that it was the Fisheries Department that refused that permit, on two grounds. One was a biological ground. There were biological objections to netting in the river in question. Secondly, there was the difficulty that those concerned in the application had not fulfilled the conditions attaching to a permit previously issued in their favour and it was feared, naturally, that if a permit was given the second time the conditions would not be observed. I pointed out these matters before to some correspondents in Galway who wrote to me about this matter but I would like to assure Deputy Bartley that it is really a point that was decided by the Department on its merits.
Deputy Bartley went on to discuss certain undesirable qualities apparent with regard to some of the boards of conservators generally arising out of that point. I have, I think, more than once stated in the Dáil that I have a very open mind on this whole question of the fishery conservators, the manner in which they are selected and the manner in which they discharge their duties. I suppose one might say it is what you might expect to find in boards of that kind—some of them very good, some indifferent and some very bad.
