Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jun 1946

Vol. 101 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 31—Fisheries.

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £19,600 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, 1947, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including a Grant-in-Aid.

On a point of order, we on this side of the House did not hear one single word of what the Minister said. I think No. 1 is a very important item and it should not be passed over lightly.

We are taking No. 3 first, Deputy. I thought I spoke rather distinctly. We shall deal with No. 3 first and then No. 1.

We could not hear a single word of what the Minister was saying.

The Minister has just moved the Vote.

I know, Sir, that you are an excellent chairman but it really is impossible for us to hear over here. There are times when nobody on this side of the House has any idea as to the sequence in which the Order Paper is going to be taken, and you have the position of one Deputy asking another Deputy if he has heard what the Minister has just said, or did he hear what the Ceann Comhairle said. It would almost appear as if there was some kind of confidential chat taking place between the Minister and the Ceann Comhairle and we, of course, do not like to interrupt.

It will be observed that the gross outlay estimated for the Fisheries service is £47,200 compared with £37,331 last year, that is, an increase of £9,869 and, as there is a falling off in the Appropriations-in-Aid of £1,995, the net result is that the 1946-47 total is £11,864 greater than the figure for 1945-46. This, however, is capable of a simple explanation. Under sub-head A, an increase of £1,884 on last year's figure represents in the main a rise in the cost-of-living bonus together with provision for one additional assistant principal officer in the Department and one assistant inspector of fisheries. During the war the staff in the Fisheries Branch was not as high as it had been pre-war and we are now proceeding to fill some of the gaps that have been so long outstanding.

Coming to the heading "Sea Fisheries", there is an increase of £560 caused by a provision for this country's contribution as a member of the International Council for the Study of the Sea and for the travelling expenses of a delegate attending the council's annual meeting. These items were a normal feature in the Estimate before the war, but during the war years no meetings were held and consequently we had only a token entry each year, but this year an international conference is again being held and we are sending a delegate to that meeting. There is no change in any of the other items under this heading.

Under "Inland Fisheries", the provision under sub-head F (1) is £750 greater than last year. This item relates entirely to the statutory disbursements made to local authorities towards loss of income to them arising from the exemption accorded, under the Fisheries Act, 1925, to fishery assessments from ordinary local rating. Such disbursements have been showing an upward trend in recent years. In sub-head F (2), the provision for salmon and trout hatchery operations, there is an increase of £890. This is due, principally, to the grant to the State hatchery at Glenties. We have to reconstruct there, at a cost of £500, a weir which was carried away during abnormal floods in 1945, and there is also a "carry forward" from the estimate of last year. Owing to the death of our fisheries engineer, this work had to be deferred and some of the necessary rearrangements could not be carried out.

There is also provision for brown trout hatchery experiments, which is £130 more than last year. This is brought in to meet the cost of replacing wornout equipment at Lough Owel hatchery and generally expanding the output at that place in the hope of meeting, partially at least, the present demand for more brown trout ova. This hatchery is run by the State in conjunction with an anglers' association. The only other item under. "Inland Fisheries" calling for comment is sub-head F (5)— miscellaneous expenses under the Fisheries Act, 1939. There is a relatively large increase there, owing to the fact that the State had taken over on transfer, with the former owner's consent, the fishery known as the Culdaff Bag Nets, in County Donegal. This comes under Section 65 of the 1939 Act and compensation will have to be paid for the fishery.

Under the heading "Sea Fisheries Association" we have three sub-heads, G (1), G (2) and G (3). There is no alteration in the amount for G (1), that is, the provision for the administrative expenses of the association. There is an increase of £4,400 under G (2). This provision is to meet repayable advances from which the association will provide boats and gear on hire-purchase terms to approved members. It should normally be higher if the association were in a position to meet all the applications, but it is not likely that they will be and they are not, therefore, asking for more than they think they can spend during the coming year, having regard to the supply position. This provision is a great deal higher than the provision for last year because last year it was impossible to get any supplies at all. The directors of the association, however, have warned me that, as soon as supplies become available, they will be asking for very much larger sums under this sub-head and I am sure that Deputies will be only too glad to vote such money when supplies are available. The repayments due by the association on foot of former advances have been very well met to date. The difference between the £5,000 set down this year and the £600 shown last year accounts for £4,400 of the net increase on the Estimate. The provision under G (3) to meet repayable advances for work of general development by the association is the same as last year's figure because, again, the association are not anxious to push on with general development while the costs are so very high as they are at the moment.

What does the Minister mean by "general development"? What is included in that?

Structural building, etc. We may have a little more about that later on. Under "Appropriations-in-Aid" there are are nine items, eight of which are practically the same as they were last year. There is one big drop, which is in the repayment of advances by the Sea Fisheries Association, of £2,000. Deputies must not take that to mean that we expect deterioration in the repayments by the members. What it is really due to is that a great number of the members of the association have repaid in full the advances made to them and they will, therefore, not be making any contributions during the coming year.

What is the total amount of advances outstanding?

I may be able to give that to the Deputy later on; I have not got it at the moment. That £2,000, with the £4,400 I have already mentioned, goes a good way to make up the difference between the Estimate this year and the year before. The association, as I mentioned, have met with a very good response from their members in the way of repayments during recent years, and there are many applicants for boats and gear and, as soon as the supply position improves, very much bigger advances will be made, I take it, to the members and repayments will be on the upgrade again.

Twelve months ago, when we were talking on this Estimate, I reported that the sea fishing industry had shown good results for the year 1944, when the total value of landings had reached £626,000 as compared with the figure of £233,000 for 1939. I do not want to suggest—and I do not want Deputies to make the reply—that I am complacent or satisfied with the condition of the fishing industry but, at any rate, it is making progress and it is well to be able to report, in these very difficult times, that the fishermen are doing better from year to year. In 1945 the value of the landings of inshore fishermen was £680,000. It was even better than in 1944; but what is more important, in my opinion, is the fact that the total quantity of wet fish—by which I mean everything except shell fish—landed in 1945 was 372,000 cwt. That compares with 307,000 cwt. for 1944 and 188,000 cwt. for 1939. Considering the very great difficulties under which our fishermen were working with regard to boats, gear and fuel, it is very creditable that they were able to land such great quantities of fish in 1945. We were glad also, I am sure, that they were able to get an increased return by way of remuneration for the fish.

As regards the Sea Fisheries Association, the directors have undoubtedly been hampered by the lack of supplies, but on the marketing side they seem to be maintaining fairly the satisfactory position reached in 1943. They continue to pay particular attention to the needs of part-time fishermen in the Gaeltacht in the matter of curraghs, trammel nets and the gear for dredging, etc. The marketing of frozen escallops from the Connemara area, after the shell-fish have been subjected to a hygienic processing, continues to mean increased earnings for the local fishermen who engage in the dredging of this shell-fish.

I think it well to avail myself of this opportunity to say something about certain matters raised here at Question Time recently. One question was in connection with an international conference recently held in London. This conference was attended by two officers from my Department. The object of the conference was to endeavour to work out some agreed measures by which to counteract the damaging results which must accrue from over-fishing in the North Sea and the other waters adjacent to these islands. We have no direct interest in the North Sea at the moment, and it might be said, therefore, that our part in this conference was purely objective. But, on the other hand, if there should be severe restrictions in the North Sea, and if fishermen should be driven from the North Sea into the waters surrounding these islands, our interests would become more subjective.

Was there any suggestion to that effect?

No, but indirectly it might have that effect if any drastic decisions had been come to. Owing to the difference in outlook of the various countries attending the conference, there were no agreed decisions on the various proposals put up for the reduction of fishing tonnage or any other remedies suggested. It was decided, however, to appoint a small standing committee to go into the matter more in detail and at leisure and that small standing committee was expected to report back to the conference within 12 months. There was only one concrete decision reached and that was to increase fractionally the minimum size below which fish should not be captured or offered for sale and a like small increase in the size of meshes in codends of trawl nets. These precautions against the capture of undersized fish, with disastrous consequences for the general stocks, received general assent from all participating at the conference. Some of those present urged that the restrictions did not go far enough. At the same time, it was generally recognised that prescribing minimum sizes for fish and for meshes of trawl nets could not be of value unless there was some major control of fishing operations generally. We might hear more of this international conference when the standing committee reports back.

Some time ago I was asked in a Parliamentary question whether the matter of our exclusive fishery limits had been discussed at the London conference. In explaining that no such item was on the agenda, I said that this particular matter had been the subject of negotiations conducted quite separately. Although these negotiations were necessarily held up during the war years, I have reason to think that we shall soon hear some definite news with regard to a resumption of the discussions. I need hardly assure the Dáil that if and when any decision is reached, it will be immediately communicated to the House.

Statements appeared in some newspapers suggesting that the quick freezing of herrings was one of the matters under discussion at the conference. That was not correct. There was no discussion on the quick freezing of herrings or any other fish. It was also suggested in some of those newspaper articles that my Department had virtually completed plans for the installation of refrigeration plants at certain points on our coastline. This also is unfounded. The application of refrigeration to fish and fishery projects is a development which is bound to come; but it is just as much one for commercial enterprise as is the curing of mackerel or herring or any of the other processes through which fish are put before reaching the market. This is a matter which the directors of the Sea Fisheries Association might possibly consider trying out, because they must adopt commercial measures the same as any other authority engaged in the fish trade; but they could not be expected to do more than the ordinary firm which is engaged in the trade.

I had also a Parliamentary question about my views on the development of deep sea trawling. This is a matter which has come up in practically every discussion on fisheries here for many years. I have always held the view that I am not interested in the development of deep sea trawling of itself, but merely as a means of assisting our inshore fishermen, whose welfare is naturally my first concern. We must remember these inshore fishermen, with their comparatively small outfits, are very much at the mercy of wind and weather and they cannot undertake by themselves to keep up a regular supply of fish under all conditions; in particular, they cannot keep up a supply of a good variety of fish to the market at all times. If by any chance we were depending entirely on our inshore fishermen, I think the demand of consumers would become very insistent for a more regular supply of fish than the inshore fishermen could give them and also a better variety than the inshore fishermen could supply. We could hardly resist that demand and fish coming in freely from outside would be detrimental to the interests of our inshore fishermen. The best thing I can see to counteract that pressure and propaganda is to have a deep sea trawling company of our own, because we can control, after all, a deep sea trawling company and direct them as far as we can—it is very hard of course to order fish from the sea as you want them—to bring in fish that would be more or less supplementary to the catch of the inshore fishermen and not interfere unduly with the inshore fisheries in their business. I therefore think that a deep sea trawling company is essential as part of our fishing policy in this country. I have made it plain on many occasions that there is, in my opinion, room only for one trawling company. I feel that if we can get one trawling company efficiently managed we shall be going in the right direction. At my request inquiries have been set on foot—they are still in progress—with the object of ascertaining whether such a company can be financed from Irish capital. Although we have not got definite results, I hope that we may have a satisfactory outcome from these inquiries.

The Dáil will remember passing an Act in 1939—the Fisheries Act, 1939— and I may be asked in the course of the debate what are our intentions with regard to the implementation of that Act. There is the question, for instance, of abolishing netting in fresh waters which is provided for in Section 35 of that statute. During the war years, the arguments against the abolition of fresh water netting outweighed the arguments in favour of abolishing that form of catching fish. The big argument for abolishing fresh water netting is that it will improve the supply of salmon, trout, etc., in the rivers and so attract anglers and improve the tourist trade in general. It has been fairly well established that the income of the country in general would be very much higher by having a good supply of salmon and trout in our rivers for anglers than the income that could be derived from fresh water netting. During the war, however, anglers were very scarce and, on the other hand, the provision of food was very important. It did seem a pity to put anybody out of business who was in a position to provide food as these fresh water netsmen were. I think the time has now come when we can proceed with the implementation of the 1939 Act, so far as the abolition of fresh water netting is concerned.

I gave a pledge to all concerned, however, when the Act was going through that they should have at least one year's notice before the section would be put into operation. I am therefore giving notice that I intend to bring this section into operation on the 1st January, 1948. The notice extends over the whole of next year and the remainder of this year as well. That will be followed, of course, as was also laid down as part of the future policy in the 1939 Act, by a restriction on netting in the estuaries but we can take our time about those things and deal at first with the fresh water netting.

Does the Minister mean to limit the number of nets he will license in an estuary?

Yes. That was fully discussed when the Act was going through and it was generally agreed that we could limit the number of nets in the estuaries somewhat so as to give those who were engaged in the business in the first place a better living and, secondly, so as to allow more salmon and trout up the rivers and still benefit the netsmen as the years go on. It will be a very good thing provided we do not impose any undue hardship on the existing fishermen. I think it can be done without inflicting such hardship.

The big matter of the Act was the transfer to the Minister of all the privately-owned or privately-held tidal-water and weir fisheries. We were obviously held up in taking the necessary steps during the war years for various reasons. We have to make a good deal of preparation in the way of surveying these weirs and estuary fisheries. We have also to examine books, titles, etc. The question of title does not enter so much into the matter but there has to be a good deal of examination of the transactions of the present owners. During the war we were not able to make any progress in that direction because we had less staff at our disposal than pre-war but we do intend to get on with this work as soon as we can.

Last year I mentioned that the preparation of a Bill to consolidate in one Act all the Fisheries Statutes from 1842 onwards—there are about 30 of them in all—was in hand. The present position is that such a measure is virtually complete in rough draft form and were it not for the great pressure of work in the office of the Parliamentary draftsman in recent months, I would possibly have the document now in print.

You are going to codify all these Acts?

Yes. I am confident that the Bill will be made available to as without very much further delay. The intention is, as soon as we get this draft from the draftsman—the procedure was laid down some time ago in the Dáil—to place it before the members of the Dáil. It will be certified, in the way laid down already, to be the law as it stands. We can then proceed to make any amendments that are necessary in the present law. When that is done I hope we shall finally be able to pass a Bill through the Oireachtas that will contain all the laws connected with fisheries in one measure. They are in a very muddled state at the moment and it is very difficult to follow some of the provisions which were changed and altered from Act to Act.

As regards the Supplementary Estimate, I should explain what it covers although I am not in a position to move it yet. In 1939 I brought an Estimate before the Dáil to enable me to pay £25,000 to the former holders of the estuarine fishery of the River Erne. Deputies will remember, perhaps, that the holders of the fishery of the River Erne were pronounced by the Supreme Court not to be in fact the owners. They were not, therefore, under the 1939 Act legally entitled to compensation for their ownership. It was felt, however—I think every member of the Dáil agreed when I put it before them —that they had themselves held the fishery in good faith, believing they were the owners. It was felt that they were entitled through ex gratia grant to get a certain amount for their interest in the fisheries. We found that in 1869 the fishery had been bought by the predecessors of the present holders for £45,000. We also had documents to prove that in 1926 one-sixth share of the fishery had been sold for £12,000, so that the market value would appear to have risen from £45,000 in 1869 to £62,000 in 1926. In considering their value now, I said we would be safe in paying £25,000, and that in that way we would be well within what would be likely to be pronounced to be the value of such a fishery when we started to operate the 1939 Act. In 1941 we passed a further sum of £6,000, and I explained on that occasion that we would be better able, when we started operating the 1939 Act, to find out exactly what this fishery was worth. I stated on that occasion that it would not be feasible to pay any more until we had at last got one valuation under the 1939 Act of a similar type of fishery, and that we could then judge what the Erne fishery might be worth. We did not contemplate at that time that the proceedings under the 1939 Act would be so long delayed and, in view of the long delay, and the probability that it would be some years before any award would be made under the 1939 Act, I think we would be justified in paying a further sum to the late holders of the Erne fisheries. I am satisfied that we could issue another £6,000, making £37,000 in all.

There is another matter arising out of that. At the hearing before the Supreme Court where the matter was decided, the then Attorney-General's counsel stated that as the case was one of public interest, involving a test of important principles, he proposed to recommend that the Government might make a contribution towards the plaintiffs' costs should the decision go against them. That promise, which was made on behalf of the Government, must also be honoured. I am asking the Dáil to vote £1,500 under that heading. As far as we know the plaintiffs' costs of the appeal were about £2,000. I am asking the Dáil to vote £6,000 further compensation for the Erne fishery, ex gratia, plus £1,500 contribution towards costs of appeal, making £7,500 in all.

Is it the intention to put the Erne case to arbitration?

No. There will be arbitration to decide the value of other fisheries. As soon as we have two or three cases, and see what the arbitrator has awarded for fisheries taken over, we can then come to a fair conclusion as to what amount he would be likely to award if the Erne fisheries came before him. I think we will be within the amount, including what is being asked for now. The late holders of the Erne fisheries are being informed that it will not be possible to vote any further moneys ex gratia in this way until we have some headline under the 1939 Act.

Seeing that the war only ended recently the Sea Fisheries Association could not get going for lack of materials, but I should like to hear what are the immediate prospects regarding supplies. The position regarding boats must be a pretty bad one. Most of the boats were built pre-war, with the exception of some since constructed of native timber. I saw some of these boats and I would not say that their life would be a long one, as the timber they were built from was green. I do not know how they were kept together. The Minister has not told us anything about any contracts with Scandinavian countries regarding supplies of timber for the construction of boats. There is also the question of gear and twine.

I understand from reports of meetings of the association that I have seen that the boat yard at Meevagh has been closed down and the gear transferred elsewhere. I was amazed at that. I wonder if the Minister had all the facts before him before the decision to close down the Meevagh yard was taken. Why was the boat yard established at Meevagh? It was placed there on expert advice and time has proved the prudence of that advice. It was placed at Meevagh because it served boats from Malin Head to Burtonport, which is the most important portion of the Donegal coast for fishing purposes. When boats are fishing at Kincasslagh, Burtonport, Downings, or around Malin, if any of them develop engine trouble there are plenty of other boats in the vicinity to take them in tow to Meevagh. That was the technical reason for the selection of Meevagh for a boat yard. The yard was developed under the Congested Districts Board, one of the objects being to give employment in the construction of boats in that poor and congested area. The Congested Districts Board also established boat yards at Killybegs and somewhere on the Galway coast. The Meevagh yard was a success but this one at Killybegs, for all practical purposes, was not.

When it is asked why the Meevagh boat yard survived and was a success the answer is that the location was convenient, being midway as a centre of the fishing industry on the Donegal coast. If boats got into trouble between Tory Island and Arranmore they would have to be taken some 60 miles to Killybegs, and would have to be towed and, as the Minister is aware, some of the most dangerous waters on that coast lie between Burtonport and Killybegs.

What I am curious to know is on whose advice this step is to be taken, assuming that it is to be taken. The matter was referred to at the annual meeting of the Sea Fisheries Association, but no definite statement was made as to whether the Meevagh boat yard was to be closed down and the machinery transferred to Killybegs. If it is to be done I think it is a fatal step.

The Minister is aware that all these fishermen from Malin Head to Burtonport are inshore fishermen, with small vessels, which under no circumstances could make the journey around the coast. It is some 70 or 80 miles from Malin Head to Killybegs and nobody in his senses will suggest that a small inshore boat, possibly disabled, could sail from Malin Head to Killybegs, and it is equally fantastic to suggest that another boat owner should take a disabled boat in tow from Malin Head to Killybegs, and then come back. There is, in addition, the matter of the fisherman's time and the cost of the fuel required to tow a boat that distance. This is a highly retrograde step and I hope that whoever advised it will be overruled. I assume that the technical reason for placing the boat yard at Meevagh was that it is in the centre of the coast-fishing beds, and also to give employment in a poor and congested district.

There is, first, the point with regard to men having accommodation for the building of new boats and the repair of damaged boats and, secondly, the position of these ten or 12 families who live by working in the boat yard. From the point of view of these families, this proposal is a cruel one. What is to happen to these families, I do not know. They cannot be taken to Killybegs because there is no place there for them. It means complete paralysis for them and I suggest that the proposal is highly retrograde and technically wrong. I hope it will not be given effect to. It is proposal which would place a burden on the small inshore fishermen which they could not bear.

As I have referred to Meevagh and to Downings, I might also refer to the cooperage. During the war, the cooperage was closed down because of lack of material for making barrels and boxes for fish, and the Minister has said nothing about what is to be done with regard to providing barrels and boxes in connection with the curing of herring. The premises are there, and I should like to see that little industry being resumed. The coopers were idle all during the war and, I expect, had no income except the few shillings dole they got. They are expert coopers with technical training, but I expect they could not find employment elsewhere, and I urge that the earliest opportunity should be availed of to secure material to put these men working again because they suffered a lot during the war.

I heartily approve of the Minister's suggestion with regard to trawlers. It is a step which should have been taken long ago and one fails to appreciate why it was not taken long ago. It is not possible to get a pound of fish in any country town on any day of the week, much less on Fridays and other days of abstinence during the Lenten season, and it is a terrible commentary on our lack of organisation that a country like this, which has so much wealth invested elsewhere, is unable to invest sufficient money in an industry which would provide good, wholesome food for the people, and particularly the poorer sections, at a price they could afford. There is not a town in this State, outside Dublin, in which, on Friday or any other day, it is possible to buy a pound of fish, although we are surrounded by the sea which teems with fish. England, a great meat-eating country, lands enormous quantities of fish every day in the week although the majority of the people there are not bound in the matter of eating fish to the same extent as we are bound.

This is a matter which must be tackled in an organised way, with vision and with a plan behind the approach, so as to develop a taste for fish and to get the people used to it. The development of such a taste is very necessary and it is shocking to think that there is nothing available for our people on Fridays but potatoes, milk, tea and bread when they could have good fish. I thoroughly approve of the proposal to purchase a trawler. I think that two or three of these trawlers should be secured, because one trawler may be disabled and laid up for a considerable period at a crucial time of the year. We could well afford to go further and secure two, if not three, trawlers and it would be money well spent. One of these could be held in reserve and I think it would be rather too conservative to invest in only one, in view of the fact that the carrying out of repairs, in the event of the trawler being disabled, would take a considerable time.

With regard to the development of the margarine industry, it has often occurred to me—it may have been done already, but nothing has been stated in this House, or, so far as I know, outside it—that there should be an examination of the possibility of getting a quota of whale oils and fats for the manufacture of this commodity. We passed a Whaling Act some years ago. It was, of course, somewhat of a joke, in so far as the machinery in that Bill was not concerned with providing anything substantial for this country. It was a kind of nominal matter in relation to protection. I should like to know if, at the conference recently held in London, there was any discussion as to our right— we being technically a contributor in the matter, and, I take it, prepared to go further, should the demand arise —to get from any of these other countries a quota of whale products for the manufacture of margarine and for other purposes.

Are the whale products that are used in the making of margarine, and for other purposes, in this country bought in the open market and has the Minister any information on that particular point? Have the manufacturers to go to the local market to buy, or do they get a quota because of the limited supply available?

On the Supplementary Vote, I do not think I have very much to say except that it is a very just measure. The ex gratia grant is well founded and eminently justified; and I think the Minister is wise in taking this step until such time as we will be aware of the average price to be paid for these estuaries and the fishing rights in them. When that matter comes to be decided we must, of course, keep always before our minds the fact that the returns from these estuaries vary a good deal. We shall have to keep that fact in mind when finally adjusting the amount of money, if any, to be paid to the owners of these fisheries. I myself can see a problem arising from this because of the limiting of the fishing in fresh water and in the estuaries. Naturally, if we limit the number of nets on the estuaries larger quantities of salmon will pass up the river to the spawning beds and, in five or six years after any given year, there will be an enormous increase in the numbers of salmon returning to the rivers.

If you limit the number of nets to a certain number of people these people will ultimately reap an enormous harvest and they will make an enormous amount of money out of the salmon fishery. The people who hitherto fished in these estuaries and who are refused licences will, of course, be penalised. In the majority of cases these men are very poor and they have no other means of livelihood except what they make during the salmon season, which lasts for about six weeks in the summer time. When we come to put this into operation I think we shall have to consider seriously making some reparation to these men. It would be a great hardship on men, who are now 50 years of age and over, and who have been fishing in these estuaries all their lives, if their livelihood is taken away from them without any attempt being made at some adequate compensation. In my opinion, the amount of salmon caught on the rod would never affect the supply. It is only where there is intensive poaching that the fry is destroyed and if the rivers are adequately protected and efficiently policed I do not think it would be necessary to put these men out of employment in the estuaries. However, that is another day's work and the matter will come before us again when the 1939 Act is put into operation.

Again, I would like to come back once more to my plea on behalf of the fishermen from Malin Head to Burtonport. A grave hardship will be imposed on these men. If the Minister has come to a decision in the matter I would ask him now to review it; if the matter has not come before him for a final decision I would ask him to turn down that suggestion, no matter who has made it. It seems to me that what happened was, somebody looked at the map with some idea of centralisation at the back of his mind and said: "We will take them all round as far as Killybegs". All the Minister has to do in this connection is to ask whoever made that suggestion why it is that Killybegs boat yard was never a success. The answer is because there were never fishing boats at Killybegs yard. There was fishing accommodation at Teelin up to some 18 months ago. The Congested Districts Board had provided accommodation for the fishermen at Teelin. There was a deep sea pier there; there was shelter there and it was some 20 to 40 miles nearer to the fishing beds than Killybegs. I have been told that the accommodation there has been sold to some private individual and the local fishermen have now no accommodation at all for the landing of fish and they must, therefore, take it round to Killybegs. I cannot understand why that accommodation should have been sold. The maintenance of it never cost very much. The Congested Districts Board maintained it during all those years when it was in existence. These fishermen are for the most part poor and in a small way of business, though highly efficient. At Teelin there was a good harbour with plenty of deep water at all periods of the year. I think Deputy McFadden raised this matter in the House within the last 12 months. Has the matter been finally disposed of? Have the pier and sheds erected by the Congested Districts Board been disposed of to a private individual and has the conveyance been completed? Surely, that was one little piece of property which was a valuable asset to the State and which could have been maintained as an asset to the State for the accommodation of these people who have fished there all their lives and behind whom there is a long tradition of fishing.

It is obvious on the Minister's figures that the inshore fishermen in this country have enjoyed a very prosperous year. The Minister, however, must remember that the prosperity in the industry in the past six years is due to the fact that there was a great scarcity of fish in England because at the outbreak of the war the majority of the trawlers were taken over by the Admiralty and used for war purposes. Since the cessation of hostilities the British Admiralty has released a large number of trawlers and to-day the English fishermen are in a position to supply the needs of their own people; and it is becoming increasingly more difficult for us to sell our surplus fish in England. The situation is becoming very serious now. Unless something radical is done and a more progressive policy adopted by the present Government there can be no future for the fishing industry. The fishing industry is very important and valuable and it would be a tragedy if it were again to experience a depression such as it went through after the 1914-18 war. Therefore, I would impress upon the Minister that he should do everything in his power to help the industry. In the part of South Kerry where I live, most of the fishermen engage in the industry for only certain portions of the year. They are generally small farmers who would find it impossible to support themselves and their families if it were not for the money they earn in fishing. These fishermen are very disappointed that the Government have not made a seriour effort to help the trade. They realise that the action taken by the Government is not sufficient to meet the problems which must be faced in the near future. I admit, of course, that the Sea Fisheries Association has done a certain amount of good work, but I warn the Minister that the activities of that association are not sufficient to get the industry on a sound working basis. I am glad that the Minister has announced his intention to do something for the industry, but I am very disappointed that he was not in a position to indicate more fully the general policy which his Ministry intends to adopt.

I am very pleased to hear the Minister state that he intends, at last, to set up a deep-sea trawling fleet. At the present time we have a number of small trawlers, particularly in Dingle Bay. These trawlers are able to supply our home market with prime fish. Generally speaking, our home market is in a position to consume all the prime fish landed in this country but, in a short time, we will find that our territorial waters have been over-fished and then the question will be asked: where can we get prime fish and, I am certain, there will be a scarcity of prime fish in this country. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we should have a deep-sea fishing fleet. I am not suggesting, of course, that we should have such a fleet to compete for the English market with the British fleet. That would be very unwise on our part when we remember that after the 1914-18 war the British trawling companies found it difficult to make the boats pay. We should have sufficient boats to give a constant supply of fish to the home market.

Of course, the question which the Minister must consider, if he intends to set up a deep-sea fishing fleet, is where is he going to get the crews to man them. It must be admitted that the fishermen in this country have not experience of working these boats. Therefore, the Minister should have apprentices trained immediately so that they may be in a position to take over and man these boats. The question is, will we get the young men for that purpose? I am doubtful, unless the Minister shows that he is serious in his attempt to help the industry. The young men who are expected to become apprentices to that trade must have a sense of security in their jobs because, otherwise, we will not get the young men, especially young men of the right type.

The great difficulty in the fishing industry will be, not to dispose of the prime fish, but to dispose of the surplus quantities of mackerel and herring landed. At the present time we can send all our supplies to the British market, but it is becoming more obvious day by day that the English people do not require our fish. If we cannot find a means of disposing of the surplus quantities of mackerel and herring, there is absolutely no future in the industry. In the past, we were able to dispose of our surplus mackerel and herring by curing it and sending the mackerel to the American market and the herring to the Continent. The American market for mackerel is gone. There is no point in indicating why it has gone, but the fact remains that it is no longer available and I do not think we will ever again secure a market there, except on a very limited scale. Unless we find some means of using our surplus mackerel and herring it will be almost impossible to make fishing pay in this country. The only possibility I can see of disposing of our surplus fish is to keep it for periods of scarcity during the winter months by the method of quick freezing. The Minister says that that is bound to come. Therefore, I presume that the representatives of the Sea Fisheries Association who were shown over the experimental station which the British Government have established in Scotland are satisfied that it is a practical proposition. If it is a practical proposition I think they should disclose the matter to those interested in the fishing industry in this country. The Minister must remember that the Sea Fisheries Association handle only a very small quantity of the fish landed in this country and it would be of very great benefit if the facts that the Sea Fisheries Association had at their disposal in regard to the British experiment could be disclosed to the trade. If quick freezing is not a success, personally, I cannot see any hope for the fishing industry in this country.

I have often in this House drawn the Minister's attention to the matter of the transport provided by Córas Iompair Éireann for fish. Those interested in the fishing industry are not at all satisfied with the transport provided. We know, of course, that Córas Iompair Éireann have difficulties in the matter of fuel, etc. It must be noted, however, that it takes fish shipped from Valentia Harbour and Dingle 24 hours longer to reach the British market than it did in the year 1943. Unless we have the same shipping transport which we had in 1943 and prior to 1943, in a very short time, fish buyers will not send fish to England during periods of warm weather. In periods of warm weather the English markets would be glutted and it would be impossible for buyers of fish here to dispose of it. I know that the railway companies have their difficulties, but I would impress upon the Minister the necessity of trying to secure for the fishing industry the same shipping and transport facilities which they enjoyed in 1943.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, in an indirect way, the railway company have endeavoured to increase the freight on fish from Valentia Island and Dingle. In the last three or four years there was an arrangement between the fish merchants in Valentia Island and Dingle and the railway company whereby a margarine box of fish and ice would be accepted at an average weight of 1 qr. 14 lb. and 1 qr. 16 lb. That has continued for three years. This year the merchants were informed by the officials of Córas Iompair Éireann that the weight would be increased to 1 qr. 24 lb. That would represent an increase of approximately 10d. a box.

The fish merchants, of course, opposed this increase and, by way of compromise, the officials of Córas Iompair Éireann said that they would accept it at an average weight of 1 qr. 20 lb. The merchants pointed out to the railway company that the fishing industry, as it were, has its back to the wall and is fighting for its existence and that increase of rates would be a severe blow to them. If that weight was accepted, it would mean that the fishermen would receive 1/6 less per 100, that is, per 126 fish. At the present time to send a box of fish from Valentia Harbour to London entails an expenditure of 6/-. That amount is necessary to cover all expenses. This increase in freight would mean a cost of 6/6 to send the box to London. The most we can get for our fish in Great Britain is 5/2 a stone, so it will be seen that the fishermen will have a very small margin of profit. The fishermen cannot stand a reduction of 1/6 per 100 in connection with their fish. Their gear is dear and scarce. The Minister should take this matter up with Córas Iompair Éireann and he should point out to them that in the opinion of the fish merchants at Valentia Harbour and Dingle the trade cannot stand this increase in freight.

It amuses me when I see the Government providing fishermen with boats and gear when they have never taken any step to provide them with a place in which they could keep their boats during the winter months. We have many fine natural harbours, but where the harbours are not good and where there are fishing fleets, surely it should be the Government's duty to see that proper piers and boat shelters are constructed, where the boats can be kept during the winter months? I have constantly raised this aspect with reference to Valentia Harbour, but so far no effort has been made to develop that port. At present over 40 boats are at Renard Point, Valentia Harbour. I recently made inquiries as to the value of fish landed at that port. In 1941 there were 53,642 cwt. of mackerel landed, worth £109,000; in 1945 there were 48,690 cwt. of mackerel landed there. That indicates that it is one of the most important fishing places we have.

The landing facilities there are simply scandalous. There is a small slip-way which was never intended for a fishing fleet. It was only intended as a landing place for people going to and coming from Valentia Island. I have seen the boats queueing up in order to unload their fish. Time after time I have seen fishermen unable to land their fish in time for the train. Frequently, owing to lack of accommodation, the fishermen have suffered a substantial reduction in prices. I cannot understand why that port has not been developed. Whenever this matter is raised we are told that the cost would be too high. At the same time money can be procured to develop the tourist trade and to develop industries. Large sums have been expended on agriculture. I am not complaining of that, but I somehow think that the fishing industry has been sacrificed in order to provide money for other industries. For some reason or other it is regarded as the Cinderella of the industries.

I have the feeling that if the Fisheries Department were anxious about this matter and if they suggested to the Department of Finance that the work is very necessary, the money would be provided. I am not at all satisfied about the attitude of the Departments. There appears to be hostility as to the development of this particular port. It is only fair that the fishermen of one of our most important fishing ports should have a decent pier at which to land their catches and keep their boats. Time after time boats have been unable to come alongside the pier. In broken weather they are compelled to go three or four miles up the river in order to land fish. The boats cannot be kept at Valentia Harbour in the winter because there is no shelter to protect them. I urge the Minister to see that a proper pier is constructed. If a new pier would cost too much we would be satisfied to have the existing pier improved.

I am disappointed that the Minister has not indicated some plan as to how the Government intend to develop the home market. The home market is good and safe and is well worth developing. We hear people saying that this community is not a fish-eating community. If you discuss this matter with Deputies many of them will tell you they never see fish in their districts. It is necessary to develop the home market because in the future we may find it difficult to dispose of our fish in England.

It is essential to have our territorial waters suitably protected. Recently I read an article in an English paper about British captains complaining that unless the Spanish boats are kept outside our territorial waters, the place will be over-fished. Of course, they are not thinking of us; they fear that in the near future, when, the North Sea waters having been overfished, they move into our waters, they will find them swept clean by the Spaniards. If we do not give our territorial waters suitable protection we will find that the small trawlers will be unable to operate. At the moment there are 30 small trawlers in Dingle Bay. If our territorial waters are not protected the Dingle trawlers will be unable to carry on and the fishermen will not be able to support themselves and their families.

There is a great scarcity of barrels. I believe there is a limited demand for mackerel in the American markets and for herrings in the continental markets. I know the British Board of Trade have refused to allow barrels to be exported to this country. For that reason I would impress on the Minister the importance of getting a good supply of barrels before the season starts. I know that every merchant is trying to secure them, but so far they have not been very successful.

The fishermen complain that they find it difficult to get nets and spare parts for engines. The Sea Fisheries Association did a good job in this connection during the war. Very seldom did I see a boat held up through lack of gear. The Minister should do all he can to secure nets and spare parts for engines.

I was glad to hear the Minister mention that it is intended to abolish or limit netting in rivers. There is no doubt the majority of our rivers have been destroyed through over-netting. But netting is not the only cause of destroying the fish in our rivers. There is undoubtedly too much poaching. Even if we limit netting in our rivers, that will not solve the problem, unless the Minister sees that the rivers are protected from poachers.

I was rather disappointed when I did not hear something about the abolition of weirs. There is a weir at Waterville and no fish can enter Waterville Lake because of it. The Minister should take that weir over so that the fish will have an opportunity of entering the lake. The Minister must make a serious effort to help the fishing industry. We enjoyed prosperity during the war years but I am perfectly satisfied now that unless they receive some Government assistance the fishermen will soon be unable to earn a livelihood.

The fact that the total of the Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate shows an increase of something like £18,000 over last year is an indication of the lively interest now being taken in the development both of inland and sea fisheries by the Minister. Reference has been made to the protection of our fishery waters and I am tempted to ask the Minister how this is to be carried out. I understand from those who observe matters around the coast, particularly those interested in deep sea fisheries, that frequently our waters are invaded and there is no sign of any kind of ship to protect them since the Muirchu went off the map. Now that we have some corvettes, I do not know whether the Minister has considered the idea of using these corvettes for the purpose of policing our seas. It is certainly heartbreaking to see some of our fishermen with their hands tied while foreign vessels come and invade our territorial waters. I do feel that something should be done in that direction. There may be, perhaps, locked up in the archives of the Minister's Department, some plan for approaching this position. If he has any such plans in the archives of his Department, it is time I think that the Minister should let the House and those people interested in deep sea fishing know where they stand in this matter.

I am, of course, more intimately associated and more concerned with inland fisheries because I have a greater knowledge of such fisheries. As one who has fished both for salmon and trout over most of this country, I am not yet satisfied that either the Minister or his predecessor made any real or earnest attempt to grapple with the position. Some speakers have made reference to the increase in poaching in this country. I am aware that poaching has increased to such an extent that some of our inland fisheries, particularly trout streams and salmon rivers, have been almost denuded of fish. I often wonder whether the Minister or the actuaries in his Department have made any calculation as to the value of the brown trout fisheries to this country. I have been given an estimate—of course, a rough estimate. I have been told that the value of the brown trout fishing in this country is between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000. Of course, I just mention that figure as one I heard given by some people who, whilst not actuaries, are still useful in making calculations of that kind. It is only a rough estimate, but even taking the figure as represented by X, those who have any experience at all of inland fishing in this country must know that the brown trout fisheries especially and the salmon trout fisheries have always attracted the best elements of the sporting fraternity across Channel. I think it will be admitted by anybody who has any experience at all that these sportmen who come across from Britain and elsewhere for the salmon and brown trout fishing proved a very useful asset indeed when they were very badly wanted in this country. If one wants any proof of that statement, which I have made on more than one occasion during debates on Estimates for this Department, I would ask them to go to any of the lakes or rivers in Kerry or Donegal. They will see there the interest taken by visiting sportsmen in the rivers and lakes. I was in Killarney over the week-end for about four days and I can assure you that I heard more English accents than native accents there. The presence of these people is not due entirely to desire for a good feed, as we heard stated recently, but is principally due to the attraction of fishing alone.

I notice that under sub-head F (2)— brown trout hatchery experiments— for which a sum of £70 was formerly provided, there is now a sum of £200 set apart. I am wondering is that enough. I do not see anything at all by way of grants, not that I am in the habit of urging grants, because I believe, as an individualist, that God helps those who help themselves but I am wondering has the Minister even considered the desirability of encouraging private hatcheries. I know that the Department are very generous in giving ova to anglers' associations and others. I am connected with two or three of these associations and we have on occasions got ova and trout from the Minister's Department. They have been very generous. I pay tribute to the officials of the Department for the zeal and interest they have displayed in anglers' associations who have hatcheries of their own but I have a feeling that a little more encouragement should be given to clubs who have established hatcheries because they are adding to the national wealth. There is a very great danger that when we release young fish every year, often as yearlings or year and a half fish, that due to the lack of civic spirit in the country, children coming from school and others will pick these small fish out of the shallows. That negatives to a very large extent the very good and useful work that has been done by people in charge of these private hatcheries. When I use the term "private hatchery" I mean not alone a hatchery run by a private person but a hatchery run by private clubs, without any help from outside beyond getting some ova or yearling trout from the Department.

Any of us associated with fishing from a sporting point of view must note with alarm the increase in poaching. The conservators in the various districts have been pretty active, but notwithstanding all their activities they are not in a position to employ more bailiffs. I fear if the industry is to be preserved in this country, the Government themselves will have to establish a section in the police forces of the country to take on the policing of rivers. I agree that that will certainly mean an increase in the personnel of the Gárda Síochána. At the moment the Gárda Síochána are doing marvellous work. They have acted on dozens of occasions as prosecutors of people who have been engaged in taking fish during the close season and in killing under-sized fish in some of the rivers, but the Gárdaí cannot be everywhere. There should be a section of the Gárdaí for this particular purpose in various districts where there are rivers which, if properly looked after, would produce splendid fish. In turn, the preservation of these fish would mean the spending of more money in this country.

In addition to the activities of the ordinary poacher as we know him, there is a system of poaching which was not quite unknown, but which grew to abnormal dimensions during the war because of the big prices offered for fish across the Channel. I refer to night lines which have been used in all parts of the country during the last few years. In many cases they have denuded small rivers of fair sized fish. I could bring the Minister to two or three very fine streams running into the Lee where it was easy in the past to get 1 lb., 1½ lb., or 1¾ lb. fish but where you could now not get fish weighing three ounces, all due to the operation of persons with night lines. If it was pointed out in the homes and in the schools that that was an injury to the State, and was an offence, I think there would be far better fishing generally. Some people may say that we can get on without inland fishing. We could do without many amenities and survive, but I should like to see this country maintaining its reputation as a paradise for anglers. We have little enough to offer without depriving sportsmen, whether they be English, Scottish or Irish of the pleasure of good fishing.

I should also like to see the Minister considering the issuing of all-in licences. I know that there he will be up against the various conservators who do not want interference with their rights in fishing areas. At the same time it is hard lines on an angler who pays a couple of pounds for a licence to find that when he moves to other fishing areas he is charged an additional 10/-. If there could be an all-in licence, with which an angler could go from one area to another, having paid whatever amount of duty the Department had fixed, I think that would have a very beneficial effect and would attract more anglers.

On the whole the Minister's statements indicate that he is taking a lively interest in the fisheries, and he has increased his Estimate very considerably this year. I commend to his particular attention the necessity for helping conservators and others engaged in protecting the rivers. The small streams are now denuded of sizable fish and, unless protected, in a short time they may not be worth protecting.

Protected against what?

The Deputy should not interrupt.

I think he does not understand. He has the Mayo mentality. We want further protection for the rivers.

I think now is the time for the Minister to demonstrate to the country our faith in the inland fisheries. A good opportunity arises after the period of prosperity associated with the fishing industry owing to the war situation. It is rather unhappy that prosperity only came to the fishing industry in such circumstances as existed for the last five or six years. I am glad to observe that the Estimate for boats and gear has been substantially increased. Very much more could be done in that way for the industry. The question of the home market should be surveyed again and an intensive effort made to have supplies of fish in areas throughout the country where they are not usually available. The position in that respect has improved and in certain towns in West Cork, 15 or 20 miles from the sea, the improvement is noticeable. I believe there is a great opportunity for a tremendous development in that respect, but it all resolves itself into the provision of suitable transport. No matter what may be said to the contrary, our people would readily avail of the opportunity to use fresh fish once or twice every week if they could get it.

I want to be helpful in this matter, and I urge on the Minister the importance of pushing on with marine works that are necessary for the development of the industry. Something has been done in that respect. I must say that any representations made by me to the Department's officials have always been given the fullest consideration. What I would like to see would be a national policy that would afford facilities on a much more generous scale along the coast than was contemplated in the past. A proposal was made some years ago to have certain experiments in deep-sea fishing carried out, and it was suggested that the Department might make a boat available for that purpose at Kinsale. I should like if the Minister could inform the House if anything has been done in that regard.

It was pleasant to listen to the Minister introducing his Estimate for the fisheries. It showed that there is a genuine interest being taken by the Department in the industry generally. I represent a constituency where grievances arise from time to time in regard to the fishing industry, at Loughshinny, Balbriggan, Rush, Howth and other areas. I have made repeated representations to the Sea Fisheries Association with regard to gluts of fish. The Loughshinny fishermen have complained sometimes that they have sent fish into the Dublin market which scarcely ever reached the controlled price, and, again, that they have sent fish in for which the price has hardly paid the cost of carriage into the city.

Other Deputies have referred to the possibility of getting our people to eat more fish. We criticise the Government for interfering too much in the various private enterprises, but in this connection I am forced by the fishermen whom I represent in County Dublin to ask the Minister and the Sea Fisheries Association if there is any possibility of the establishment of fish depots in the inland towns. The fishing industry gives a good deal of employment and the fishermen are definitely up against it in trying to get proper markets for their fish. If we are to get our people to eat more fish, the marketing of fish will have to be handled in a practical way, so that the people in inland towns will get fish in fresh condition and so that rotten fish will not be put on the market for them. The only way in which that can be done is by having the business handled by the Department directly concerned with the industry, because the trouble with private individuals is that they will not handle fish properly for sale in the local towns, with the result that the public—I hope I am not being uncharitable in saying this —are asked to buy fish which is almost tainted. That will kill the trade. The only way to deal with the problem is by financing it on a national basis and by the establishment of fish depots in the large inland towns and in that way ensure that our people will get decent fresh fish. The position heretofore has been that the people have bought fish once and have never bought it again. I am glad to hear the Minister is considering acquiring deep-sea trawlers, which will be a help to the fishermen.

With regard to boats, I have had a number of complaints, from Howth especially. In years gone by, Howth was the premier fishing port on the east coast, but to-day the fishermen of Howth are in a bad way for lack of suitable boats. The Minister has already intimated to me his willingness to help these fishermen when boats again become available. I suggest that the Minister should give more encouragement to the districts I have mentioned—Howth is not so bad —such as Balbriggan, Loughshinny and Rush. There is in Balbriggan a harbour about which the fishermen have made several complaints—I merely mention the harbour for the purpose of my argument—and I should like to see a little more co-ordination between the Department of Agriculture and the harbour authority with a view to improving the position there. I am sorry that I have to say of Balbriggan that the harbour is not what it ought to be from the fishing point of view.

The Deputy is not out of order in referring to the harbour.

The same applies to Loughshinny, where there is not even a light in the harbour, and it is only within the last few weeks that, after much representation, we succeeded in getting electric light for Rush harbour. I wonder if it would be possible to establish in each fishing village a fairly large cold storage premises. It happens occasionally that there is a glut of fish on the market and fishermen are scarcely able to get a price which will cover the cost of carriage into the city, and, if these cold storage facilities were provided, it would be possible to hold the fish over. Fishing is such a haphazard trade that every effort ought to be made to encourage those engaged in it. With regard to gear and other requirements, the Sea Fisheries Association have done their best to provide supplies of which the fishermen have been short. The dredging of Howth harbour is another matter which the Minister might have considered, now that there is a possibility of getting larger boats. I should like to see larger boats put into service. A number of my constituents have only small boats, with the result that they have to return from the fishing grounds after a few hours' fishing and have to depend on reasonably fair weather, and I am glad to hear that the Minister proposes to make certain provisions in this connection. Finally, I want to urge the Minister and the Department to do everything possible to encourage the sale of fish. It can be done only on the basis of a nation-wide campaign, by the proper handling of fish and by the establishment of special fish depots in the large inland towns.

Ba mhaith liom beagán a rá ar an Mheastachán seo. Ar chóstaí an iarthair ní raibh aon tionnscail ní b'fhearr ag na daoine ná an t-iascaireacht. Go dtí le leith-chéad bliain ó shoin bhí an t-iasc go fairsing thart ar chóstaí na hÉireann. Thigeadh gach cineál éisc ina shéasúr féin, an scádán, an bradán, an trosc, an langa, an feannóg agus an chéadóg, thigeadh siad thart i rith na bliana. Agus bhí na hiascairí réidh fá na gcoinne le líonta do na scádáin agus na bradáin agus dorugaí don éisc bhán. Bhíodh na bádaí móra seal acu agus bádaí rámha agus curaigh acu do réir mar d'oireadh. I ngach port bhí na ceannaitheoirí ag coimhlinnt le chéile cia gheobhadh an t-iasc ab fhearr le cur chun margaidh agus gheibheadh an t-iascaire luach orthu a dhíol é ar shon a shaothair. Gach lá bhí iasc le fáil ag muintir na tíre—biadh maith folláin —agus chuaigh sé isteach na mílte ón chladach go dtí na feirmeoirí agus lucht oibre. San am seo ba é an t-iascaireacht gléas beo na mílte muirín a bhí ina gcomhnaí chois farraige.

Táim ag trácht anois ar leith-chéad bliain ó shoin agus ar an t-athrú a thainig ó shoin. Is maith liom a chruthú gurb iad na tráiléirí móra gaile a thainig ó thíortha eile anseo a mhill agus a chreach an t-iascaireacht ar chóstaí an iarthair. Is iad sin d'fhág an t-iasc gann agus daor ag ár muintir féin agus is iad d'fhág an t-iascaire bocht fá chladaigh an iarthair gan croí nó misneach a dhul chun farraige. Scuab na tráiléirí móra seo leo go Sasan agus tíortha eile an t-iasc a bhí mar shlí bheatha aige féin agus a shinsear. Níos measa ná sin, scuab siad leo pór an éisc gur fhág siad na cladaigh lom folamh.

Taobh amuigh de na blianta 1914-1918 agus 1939-1945, ní raibh bliain le leith-chéad bliain nach raibh na tráiléirí seo ag scuabadh leo an éisc ó chladaigh na hÉireann. Ar feadh an dá chogaidh bhí sos agus faoiseamh ag an iasc ó na tráiléirí. Bhí na soithigh seo ar athrú gnaithe. I gcionn beagán ama bhí an t-iasc go fairsing ar ais agus gléas beo ag ár n-iascairí féin.

Tá a fhios againn go léir go bhfuil athruithe móra ag teacht ar thíortha ar fud an domhain. Beidh tórainneacha úra againn ar muir agus ar tír. Ná bímidinne inár gcodladh ar chósta na hÉireann. Seo an t-am againn ár nglór a thógáil fá na tórainneacha. Seo an t-am againn le nar gcúis a chur i gcaibideal fa thráiléireacht ar chóstaí na hÉireann. Anois an t-am againn rialacha úra a dhéanamh le leas na hiascaireachta agus an tionnscail seo a chosnamh agus a shábháil dár n-iascaircí féin. Chuala mé go raibh comhdháil eadarnáisiúnta i Londain i mbliana fa ghnaithe iascaireachta agus go raibh teachtairí ó Roinn an Aire i láthair agus tá súil agam gur thóg siad an cheist seo fa na tórainneacha. B'fhéidir go dtiocfaidh leis an Aire a innse dúinn cad é thárla ag an Chomhdháil seo. Má geibhmid suaimhneas ó na hallmuirigh seo beidh caoi againn ar n-iascairí féin i ghléasadh. Beidh orrainn bádaí níos mó a fháil doibh agus gléasraí dá réir. Ar feadh an chogaidh a chuaigh tharainn, bhí sé doiligh adhmad oiriúnach a fháil do na bádaí ach ní bheidh sé i bhfad mar sin anois. Mar an gcéanna le rópaí, líonta, dorugaí agus dubháin agus gach gléas iascaireachta. Beidh siad uilig ag teacht níos fairsinge.

Annsin beidh deisiú a dhíth ar chéidheanna agus slipeanna cois cladaigh a ligeadh ar lár. Tá a fhios agam féin mórán acu seo ar chóstaí Dhún na nGall. Ag Malainn Bheag, ag Malainn Mhór, ag Ros Eoin, ag Gort tSáile, Poll a Choire agus go leor eile.

Cluinim nach bhfuil na bradáin againn chomh fairsing agus bhíodh roimhe seo agus is comhartha é seo nach bhfuil go leor áiteacha síolruithe againn. Ba chóir don Aire dearcadh ar an scéal agus tuilleadh áiteacha síolruithe a chur ar bun ar na haibhneaca.

Aontaím leis na Teachtaí a labhair ar an éagóir a rinneadh ar iascairí Teidhlinn agus na Dúinibh i dTír Chonaill. Díoladh an stáisiún i dTeidhlinn—a thóg an sean-C.D.B. do na hiascairí—agus an talamh a bhí acu dá gcuid líonta. Rinne an Rialtas seo agus a súla foscailte nó tugadh le fios dóibh nach raibh sé ceart nó cóir an cleas gránna seo a dhéanamh ar na hiascairí bochta. Tá súil agam nach bhfuil sé ró-mhall ag an Aire an scéal a leigheas.

I think the Minister looked, perhaps, a little bit embarrassed when Deputy Burke was paying him compliments on his expert knowledge of fisheries generally. I think he should be definitely embarrassed when Deputy Burke, or any other Deputy, compliments him upon the originality of his introductory statement because, as far as my recollection goes, many of the points which the Minister made in introducing his Estimate this year were made by him in other years and many of the promises which he made and many of the hopes which he held out were likewise made and held out by him in previous years. The Minister referred to the steps which he is taking to promote deep-sea trawling and to bring about the establishment of a deep-sea trawling company. I think he expressed similar hopes last year—or, if not last year, certainly in the year prior to that. So far very little has been done in this direction. I was somewhat puzzled by one point made by the Minister in reference to this particular type of fishing. He said that the deep-sea trawling company would essentially have to be complementary to the inshore fishing and would not engage in any type of fishing which would be in competition with inshore fishermen. As one who has not any great knowledge of fisheries generally, this particular point struck me as being rather peculiar. It would seem to me that, if we are to equip a deep-sea trawling company, that company should go out to catch all the fish that are available within the area under their control. I would imagine that the prime objective of both deep-sea fishing and inshore fishing should be to catch all the fish that can be obtained in order to increase the volume of output to the largest possible extent.

I did not quite grasp the figures which the Minister gave in regard to the total volume of fish caught last year or in regard to the value of the fish caught. I think he gave a figure of £628,000 as the value of the fish caught. I do not think he gave any figure as to the value of the inshore fish caught; but I can imagine that, even if he did give a figure, it would be very difficult to get a reliable figure as regards the inshore fisheries or the volume of fish caught. I suppose the only method of obtaining such statistics would be to obtain an accurate account from the people engaged in the fisheries and I am not at all sure that such an account would be either very reliable or very accurate; but it might at the same time, perhaps, be just as reliable as some of the statistics upon which the Minister has very often to rely.

Last year I asked a question as to whether investigations had been made into the disease which led to the destruction of the fish in the Liffey Reservoir. I understand that the trout were almost completely destroyed there by some unidentifiable disease. The fish in the reservoir now are again quite healthy and I would be very interested to know if investigations had shown to the Department what was the nature of the disease which destroyed the fish in the first instance and whether it is likely to recur in the future. This is an important matter because it will affect our inland lakes in the event of our being able to restock them and increase the amount of fish therein and the feeding available for them. I believe that there is a future for our fisheries in our inland lakes if they are restocked, and even if it is necessary to introduce some type of additional feeding for them. I think that particular industry is capable of enormous development.

I would be glad if the Minister, when replying, would give the House some indication or some information as to the extent to which native industry is competent to supply boats for fishing and fishing equipment. That, too, is a very useful industry associated directly with fishing and one which requires development and encouragement. Another matter of supreme importance is the proper development of our harbours and piers for the landing of our fish and the protection of our boats. This is a matter which should not be neglected. All pressure should be brought to bear by the Department of Fisheries on the other Departments concerned in this direction to ensure that proper harbours are provided and proper protection available for our fishing fleets. One outstanding fact which strikes every person residing in inland counties in this country is the complete absence of fish for sale in our inland towns. There is practically no fish for sale in any of our inland towns. If fish were provided in proper condition and in suitably equipped shops the demand would greatly increase. While we export a very considerable amount of fish, we import large quantities. In 1938, which would be regarded as the last normal year, the value of the fish imported was £146,000. The greater portion of that was tinned or preserved fish. With suitable organisation it should be possible to secure that market and a great deal more. Even while we import a quantity of fish, there is a large section of our population who cannot buy fish and who would use fish if it were available to them. Therefore, there is a very big home market awaiting development.

I do not entirely agree with Deputy Burke and other Deputies who suggested that the Department or the Sea Fisheries Association should go into the business of retailing fish. Private enterprise should be capable of that operation. It might be possible, and I think it would be desirable, for an organisation such as the Sea Fisheries Association to regulate or control in some way the manner of distribution, that is, to see that persons who act as agents for the sale of fish in towns and cities are properly qualified and equipped for that business and will carry it on in a manner conducive to the interests of the industry. We know that companies engaged in the wholesale motor and petrol trade, for instance, regulate the manner in which their agents carry on their business. An organisation such as the Sea Fisheries Association should see that their fish is marketed and sold in proper condition. That is only elementary good business. If such precautions are taken, I do not think it should be necessary for the Department or the association to engage directly in the retail of fish.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with Deputy Anthony when he speaks about the inroads made upon the supplies of fish in our inland rivers by poachers, but if proper facilities are given and if suitable opportunity were afforded to the poorer sections of our community to engage in this occupation, they would not infringe upon the rights of others. This matter was discussed when the Fisheries Bill was before the House and it was strongly urged on that occasion that licences should be made available as cheaply as possible so that all sections of the people could engage in fishing. One Deputy talked about educating the young people in the protection of the rights of others. Personally, my only experience of fishing was when as a small boy I engaged in fishing for trout with a sack fixed on a forked stick with a little bit of wire netting on the bottom.

A poacher's game.

It may surprise Deputies to know that I caught quite a lot of fish in that way. I am worried to know whether that was legal or illegal.

Very illegal.

My conscience is not troubling me too much, because the days in which I engaged in that sport were the happiest days of my life.

Deputy Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín referred to the protection of our territorial waters and spawning grounds. He indicated that that is a matter that might have been dealt with by the recent International Fishery Conference. I put down a question to the Minister on that very matter and I was informed that it was not a fit subject for that particular conference and that it was not in fact raised by our representative there. I agree with Deputy Mac Pháidín that this is a matter of supreme importance to Irish sea fisheries. If that particular conference was not competent to deal with it, I would ask the Minister to say when replying what international conference is competent to deal with the question of the alteration of the territorial waters limit. I agree with Deputy Mac Pháidín that further protection than is now available should be afforded. The consensus of opinion of those who are interested in sea fisheries is that, in all fairness, the limit should be extended, in view of the efficiency of the catching equipment, to at least ten miles. There will be progressive deterioration in the sea fisheries if the limit of three miles is retained in face of the ever improving catching facilities.

On the question of the establishment of a deep-sea trawling fleet, I believe the Minister's advisers are satisfied that there will not be any conflict of interest between such a fleet and the inshore organisation which has been built up. I should like to feel the same confidence as the Minister's advisers feel in the matter. I cannot see how the two ideas can be dovetailed into each other. It is all very well to make plans on the basis of war-time experience but we all know that war time is a particularly good time for selling fish or any other food product.

Always after a war we experience a lean period. It seems to me that the English market will not be the plum that it was during the war years. You will have the North Sea fleet out again in full blast in, I suppose, a very short time. If there is a future for a deep-sea fishing fleet, I think the Minister would be well advised to leave that matter to a private enterprise. If the project has any future, there ought to be sufficient private enterprise available in this country to undertake it. If the Minister undertakes it, even in an indirect way, and if it should fail, he will get the full blast of criticism afterwards.

I should like the Minister to answer a question which I put to him on a few occasions. I am anxious to know when is it his intention to implement a promise made to us, when the Inland Fisheries Bill was introduced, to reconstitute the boards of conservators. These, as the Minister knows, are repositories of privileges and of rights which are begrudged to anglers and sporting men generally. I think the time has come when these rights and privileges should be spread out more. The average man is entitled to a little enjoyment on our rivers. Fishing associations are now becoming numerous and the Minister has at hand very suitable instruments to which he could transfer, either in whole or in part, the duties heretofore carried on by those boards of conservators. He promised that amending legislation would be brought in and that these bodies would be democratised, to a greater extent than they are, in any event. I should like the Minister to indicate if it is the intention in the near future to fulfil that promise.

There is one matter I would like to mention to the Minister. He did not make any statement on it, and yet I feel that it must be faced sooner or later. I have in mind the question of pollution. We have got pollution all round the coast from sewage and from industrial discharges. There is no doubt that inland towns are able to get over their sewage disposal problems. I know it is a very big, technical subject, but sooner or later it will have to be faced by the Minister. You could not eat the shell fish found around Dublin, as the Minister indicated in his reply to me to-day when I asked him a question on the subject. I do not know if the Government feel that they could ultimately clean the shores of this island or will they have to allow them to get worse and worse as industries grow and discharges into the sea become more frequent?

I am sure that the spread of arterial drainage will bring down a whole lot of matter from inland waters to the sea. The fish could ascend those waters if they were kept clean, but if they are contaminated in the way some of the waters are, it means that no fish can live in those waters and oysters found within miles of those places cannot be used. I think the Minister should face the problem and see if anything can be done. We have heard of places where the disposal of sewage, when treated, is profitable. I cannot believe that could happen to us, situated geographically as we are, but if it could be done, it would make a very big increase in the amenities along parts of our coast.

I think it has been agreed generally that progress in the fishing industry in the future will depend upon the consumption of fish. We are told by those intimately interested in that industry that, now the war is over, Great Britain will be in a position to supply almost all her needs. I think that will be generally accepted. We have an advantage over the people of Great Britain in so far as we have so many fast days and days of abstinence. Take the Lenten period. In rural Ireland, in the small towns and villages, it is a rare thing to see fish on sale. Who is to be blamed for that? I do not know. The past Government and the present Government have not taken sufficient interest in the development of the fishing industry. In County Mayo any fish on sale there come from Dublin, a distance of 130 or 160 miles as the case may be, the further west you go.

In the West of Ireland there are as good fishermen as you will find in Kerry, Dublin or Galway, but there is no encouragement, no market wherein they could dispose of their fish. We have Lecanvey, Blacksod and other places. In Lecanvey there is no pier or proper landing-place. There are a number of people in that area who are very interested in developing the fishing industry if they were provided with proper facilities and got encouragement. Mayo is a county that has been very much neglected in the past. Since I entered this House the needs of Mayo have scarcely been considered at all. That has been particularly noticeable in connection with the development of the turf industry. I think the claims of the county so far as the development of fishing is concerned should receive sympathetic consideration from the Government unless they consider that Mayo is outside their jurisdiction altogether.

If we are to develop and encourage the consumption of fish, fish will have to be marketed in an up-to-date manner, particularly from the point of view of cleanliness. If we had in each town one fish merchant who could cater for the retail of fish under proper conditions—with plenty of ice and marble slabs to display the fish instead of confining them in some old box or barn where one would have to stuff one's nostrils because of the stench—our people generally would consume a good deal more fish than they are doing at present. In the same way as a person will not eat at a table at which the cutlery and other appointments are not clean, people will not buy fish if the conditions under which they are sold are not clean and hygienic. I think we would have a splendid market for good fish in this country if it were properly developed. It has been a great cause of complaint in my county that during the Lenten period and indeed at other seasons of the year, not as much as a herring can be got for love or money. The old folk who have still a liking for fish—as far as the young are concerned they have no liking for it, because they never had an opportunity of developing a taste for it as the fish was not available—often say: "How is it that since we got a native Government, we cannot get any fish". That is the cry in practically every town in my county.

Deputy Bartley stole some of my thunder in his references to the privileged section of the people. That was what I meant when Deputy Anthony talked about the Mayo mentality. I do not care whether he may describe it as a Galway mentality, a Mayo mentality or a Connaught mentality, but I regard it as the working-man's mentality. If he thinks that the working-man has not as much right to enjoy these privileges as any person who comes here from abroad, any person whose sole claim to the exclusive use of these privileges is that he can produce a wallet of notes, and use this country as a happy hunting ground, then the Deputy cannot claim to be representing the people. I think that the time has come when legislation should be introduced to ensure for our own people the enjoyment of these perfectly legitimate rights, so that they will be placed within the reach of everybody, rich and poor, simple and gentle. That is my attitude to this question but I apologise to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for having interrupted the Deputy. I was beginning to doze off while the Deputy was speaking but I could not go to sleep listening to such nonsense.

Now that the Minister has returned to the House, I should like again to mention the claims of Lecanvey, a district near Westport. One of my colleagues, Deputy Kilroy, has informed me that he understands the people there are getting a grant for the erection of a pier. I hope the Minister will give them every encouragement in their efforts to have that pier erected and that if deep-sea trawlers become available, the claims of the people of that district will be considered sympathetically because, as I have already said, Mayo has been very much neglected of late.

In relation to the question of protection of our deep-sea fisheries, not only the Spaniards but even the French have got the impertinence to come inside our territorial waters. I think the Government should see that every possible protection will be forthcoming to ensure that our territorial waters will be defended against any outsiders who may attempt to fish within these waters. I should like to repeat that the development of the fishing industry will depend to a large extent on the manner in which the fish are presented for sale to our people. A lot will also depend on the facilities made available for fishermen who are prepared to spend their time and risk their lives in this very dangerous occupation. On these two things, the conditions under which the fish are marketed and the facilities which are made available for the fishermen, will depend the success of the industry. I think our people have as much, if not a greater liking for fish as the people of any other country and they will consume all the fish that can be made available.

I want to congratulate the Minister on his vision in providing for the development of our coastal and deep-sea fisheries of the future. At the same time, I want to express my disagreement with the decision of the Minister to compensate the confiscators of the fisheries of this country. I hold that the lakes and rivers, the coastal and deep-sea fisheries of the country, are the property of the people of the country and, as in the instance when compensation was provided for the confiscators of our land, I want to put on record my objection, at all events, to the proposition to provide compensation for those who confiscated our fishing rights in the past.

I want particularly to refer to the Minister's warning of his intention to put into operation in 1948 the recent Fishery Act passed by this House, particularly with regard to the disposal of net licences in the estuary fisheries. We are very much concerned with that decision in my constituency because the Boyne is well known as one of the biggest salmon fisheries in the State outside the Shannon itself. I would ask the Minister to consider seriously the methods he will adopt when he comes to reduce the number of nets or the abolition of net fishing altogether on the River Boyne. Not only many people in the villages of Baltray and Mornington but many urban dwellers in the town of Drogheda make their living from net fishing. It may be only a seasonal occupation but it is a very important one for these men and their families. I have a suspicion that the people who will come here every season to enjoy fishing as a pastime will be getting more consideration than the people who have actually to earn their living and maintain their families through net fishing. I hope the Minister will not be too drastic when he comes to make a decision on these matters.

I am going to open a very old sore, one with which the Minister is very well acquainted and that is the provision of a septic tank for the mussel industry on the Boyne. I am not oblivious to the fact that the Minister had a sworn inquiry held recently concerning the mussel industry, but I think it is my duty as a public representative to bring to his notice the fact that Drogheda Harbour Board have to use their dredger to take mussels from the river Boyne and deposit them out at sea. I wonder what the Minister would think if a farmer with a hundred tons of wheat or potatoes had to dispose of them in that way during the season, by putting them in the sea. I maintain that the mussel industry is a valuable one, and I remind the Minister that the cost involved in the provision of a septic tank on the Boyne would be saved in the unemployment benefit that is now paid during the winter months. People who in the past earned a living by fishing are not now able to pursue that calling, owing to the fact that they are debarred from sending mussels to the British market when no purification tank is available locally. I hope the Minister will give the request favourable consideration this year. I make allowances for the difficulties that existed during the emergency, but now that they are coming to an end, I hope a tank will be provided this year. I appeal to the Minister to try to do something and not to have thousands of tons of wholesome food destroyed, when it is possible to avoid doing so. The proposition is an economic one because there is a market that will take all the mussels offered to it.

Deputy McMenamin referred to an Act that was passed through this House some years ago in connection with the whaling industry. It is not a matter to joke about. We have men who are quite capable of taking their part not only in sailing such boats but in working whaling factories. There are men in Drogheda who took part in the construction of whaling factories, and I see no reason why this nation should not be in a position to establish a whaling factory and man it with Irish seamen. Whaling factories elsewhere are manned by many Irish seamen, including some from Drogheda.

I hope the Minister will see his way to establish deep-sea trawling. Men from the east coast of Ireland are manning fishing trawlers in England. Why should they not man Irish trawlers? I trust the Minister will succeed in his efforts in that regard. While I may be poaching the territory of Deputy Burke and Deputy Cosgrave, I wish to direct attention to the need of making transport available to small fishing villages. I make no apology for so doing in regard to Loughshinny where there is a hardy race of fishermen. There are six or seven motor trawlers and a large number of ordinary fishing boats there, but the fishermen are very badly served as regards transport for the delivery of their catch to market. I have been visiting that district for a number of years and when transport was supplied by the Great Northern Railway it was anything but satisfactory, as was also the service provided by private lorry. The people there are entitled to special consideration owing to the fact that they are five miles from a railway station. Deputy Burke mentioned Balbriggan and Howth, but these places have railway connections and are not badly served for transport. Loughshinny is five miles from the railway, and transport provided by lorry has not been satisfactory for a number of years. Recently those interested pooled their resources and purchased a lorry with which to deliver fish to the market, but I understand that some objection has been taken to that arrangement.

I ask the Minister to consult the Minister for Industry and Commerce to see if some equitable arrangement could not be arrived at, so that the fishermen could use the lorry for one purpose only, to deliver fish to the Dublin market. I understand that occasionally when the fishermen have good catches for Fridays they find, owing to lack of transport to the Dublin market, that the fish may have to be held over till Saturday morning. I impress upon the Minister the desirability of taking a special interest in these men. He should see that they are allowed to use the transport they have provided and get the benefit of a favourable market.

I listened with interest to a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies paying the usual compliments to the Minister, and watering them down later by mentioning various complaints. At one stage I thought we might soon have an election. I should like to impress upon the Minister the point made by Deputy Walsh, because a difficulty has always presented itself as far as Loughshinny is concerned. The Minister should make representations to the other Departments concerned, as the request seems to be a reasonable one, particularly when it is remembered that Loughshinny area is outside that covered by transport belonging to Córas Iompair Éireann. As far as I know Córas Iompair Éireann only serves certain parts of North County Dublin, while the other portions are served by the Great Northern Railway. While the Deputy mentioned that Balbriggan, Skerries and other towns on the railway line are amply served, the same does not hold as regards Loughshinny. I suggest to the Minister that an exception should be made in this case in order to facilitate the people of that area.

Difficulties present themselves to fishermen in County Dublin as well as to fish eaters. The fishermen are dissatisfied with the prices they receive for their labour while, on the other hand, fish at all times is dear in Dublin. It is an extraordinary commentary on the whole fishing industry that that was the position until recently. The price of fish has been excessive in Dublin, and as far as I can gather, fishermen are inadequately remunerated. The other difficulty also presents itself that in a number of these small fishing villages like Howth, Balbriggan, Loughshinny and Rush, on certain days, fish in excess of the market demand is caught, and if the Minister and the Sea Fisheries Association could devise a plan which would even out the market, or enable fishermen to dispose of the fish caught, either in Dublin or in other parts of the country, on the days on which there is an excessive catch, or on which the demand does not exhaust the supply, he would be doing a great considerable service to the fishing industry.

These people are in the difficult position that fishing at any time gives them only a fairly comfortable existence. In fact, on most occasions, it cannot even be said to do that, and the complaint time and again is that, when the fish are available, the market is not available. I would congratulate the Minister, as Fianna Fáil Deputies have congratulated him, if we could get from him a plan to give these fishermen a stable and remunerative market and to give fish to the citizens of Dublin at a price cheaper than obtains at present.

With regard to the protection of territorial waters, grievous complaints were made to me last year that, even in Dun Laoghaire, foreign trawlers came within the three-mile limit. The Minister has told us that corvettes are to be made available and that these will do something to protect these waters. I hope they will, because I have been told that at any time in the morning and sometimes late in the evening—but especially in the morning—these fishing boats were to be seen fishing inside the territorial waters, but by the time any boat could get out to them, they had disappeared. I suggest that protection should be given, and the sooner the corvettes are put into service, the better.

I promised Deputy McMenamin that I would give him figures for the amounts due by the Sea Fisheries Association by way of repayable advances. I am sorry that I have not been able to get the figures, but I shall let the Deputy have them in the course of a day or two. With regard to his point about the issue of boats and gear, I can only say that the acute shortage has not yet disappeared. There is a world shortage of timber—hence the great difficulty of providing the hulls for the boats. It is nearly impossible to get engines so far, and, so far as gear is concerned, the position is not very much better. The Deputy will realise that when I tell him that the British fishermen are complaining as bitterly as ours about the great lack of equipment, gear and so on.

Deputy McMenamin also referred to the shifting of the boat-yard from Meevagh to Killybegs. All I can say is that the Sea Fisheries Association are equally interested in all their members and may be relied on to be just as impartial and just as anxious as was the Congested Districts Board. Prima facie, therefore, when they propose to make this change, I have to come to the conclusion that they have good reasons for making it. I do not altogether agree with the Deputy that the position is that there were many boats in the vicinity of Meevagh and not many in the vicinity of Killybegs. I do not think that is the position.

It is absolutely correct.

There are very many more boats at the moment in active fishing in the Killybegs area. The failure of the boat-yard in Killybegs was connected with the industrial school there, and I think that gives the explanation. I do not want to go into the details because I should require to see a very strong case put up against the action of the Sea Fisheries Association before I would be convinced that they had done anything wrong or unjust.

It is not a question of doing a wrong; it is a question of doing an unwise thing.

The trouble about these things is that there will be difference of opinion, but we shall have to admit that the Sea Fisheries Association did what they thought best in the interests of the fishermen generally.

Is any one of these men a fisherman?

The men on the Sea Fisheries Association?

Yes. Is there one of them who ever went out in a boat in his life and spent a night fishing? Is there one of them who ever took a boat down from Malin Head to Killybegs?

A man might be imbued with commonsense, even if he had not done so. With regard to the trawler company, I hope I did not leave the Deputy under a wrong impression. I did not mean to give the impression to the Dáil that my idea of a trawler company was one trawler. I think we would need at least six, in the light of our experience, if we are to fill the deficiencies in fish supplies as provided by the inshore fishermen. I agree with Deputies generally that we should try, if at all possible, to increase the consumption of fish, and, that being so, we may want even more than six trawlers.

What are you going to do with the inedible qualities of fish which the trawler brings in?

If the quantity were big enough, we might be able to do something about it, but at present the waste —if it can be so described—goes to the making of fishmeal, which is the only thing which can be thought of at the moment. Deputy McMenamin also referred to Section 37 of the 1939 Act. So far as I and the Department are concerned, the provisions of that Act must be carried out as enacted. It is true, of course, that if we stop freshwater netting, the estuarian netmen will reap the advantage eventually, because it is natural to expect that more fish will get up the river when the freshwater netmen are put out of commission and that after some years—three to five years—there will be a bigger run of fish generally and the estuarian netmen will reap the first benefit. The provisions generally will then come into operation.

This matter of the development of the home market is one which has given everybody a good deal of worry. One of the first things the Sea Fisheries Association did after being set up was to try to develop the home market. They put vans on the road, but difficulties arose in that connection, too. If any Deputy has any good ideas—I do not say this in any critical spirit—with regard to the development of the home market, getting fish more generally used in the inland towns and also getting fish more generally used from the point of view of variety and so on, we should be very glad to get them. There are certain classes of fish brought in by our trawlers, as mentioned by Deputy Dillon, which are not used to any great extent in this country and which perhaps could be used, even as human food.

Is the Minister aware that his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, struck a very heavy blow at the expanding home market when he fixed the same retail price for fish in Ballybay and Ballaghaderreen as he fixed in the City of Dublin, leaving the fish merchants in these remote towns to pay the freight out of their own profit, which often meant that they had to sell the fish for less than what it cost them, so that they had to get out of selling fish altogether?

If these fixed prices are to continue as a peace-time measure we should, I admit, give very much more thought to the various consequences involved and the different conditions obtaining in the different places.

Or, at least, to the freight rates from the distributing centres to the point of consumption; otherwise, the people cannot sell fish. God knows, it is a chancy enough trade as it is.

Deputy Healy appeared to be under the impression that this trawler company would be Government owned and Government controlled. I have been making an effort for many years now to induce private enterprise to take up this trawler business. In my opening statement here to-day I again adverted to the fact that once more I had appealed to those who are interested in the fishing industry, from the commercial point of view, to come together and form a good and efficient trawling company. As I mentioned also in my opening statement, I had some hope that a good trawling company may be put into commission as soon as good boats, and so on, can be obtained.

With regard to quick freezing and cooling, that no doubt is practicable from the technical point of view; but from the financial point of view it is a different matter altogether. Again, this is a case purely for private enterprise. I do not see how the Government could come in and set up a freezing plant here and there. It is a matter for those engaged in the industry to do that, including the Sea Fisheries Association. If they did go into this business it is not to be expected, at present costs at any rate, that they can put up these plants except at the very, very big centres because the capital cost involved in putting up freezing plants at all the centres where fish is landed would be entirely uneconomic.

The question of transport was raised, both by Deputy Healy and by some other Deputies—Deputy Healy in particular reference to the place with which he is concerned and other speakers with regard to Loughshinny. All I can promise is to do what we can on this transit question but, of course, the transit companies have their point of view too. We may not get all the conditions the fishermen would like, but we shall do the best we can.

A number of Deputies spoke about harbours and piers and slips. The machinery for dealing with these is now very much easier from the administrative point of view. Hitherto, it was a very long and laborious type of procedure which we had to pursue in order to get the various Departments concerned to agree. Now, we have established a liaison committee, representative of all the Departments concerned. This committee will meet regularly to deal with the various harbours and landing places and so on. If there is a good case for development the committee will give it every consideration.

With regard to protection, I do not think there is just now, very urgent reason for the protection of our sea fisheries. Deputy Anthony raised two points in connection with it. During the war there was no great need for the protection of our sea fisheries. It is to be expected, however, that now that the war is over foreign fleets will come back again. We are now very much better equipped to deal with the protection of our sea fisheries than we were pre-war. The Department of Defence has a number of suitable patrol vessels, which it had not got before the war, and I think we should be able to look after our interests now so far as that particular aspect is concerned.

Will those patrol boats be stationed at various ports throughout the country or will they be concentrated in Dublin Bay?

At the moment they may be concentrated in Dublin but once the question of protection arises they will be distributed throughout the various ports. Deputy Anthony also raised a question in connection with our inland fisheries and their protection from poachers. I agree that is a problem which requires closer consideration. I have come to the conclusion, just as Deputy Anthony has, that we shall have to avail of our police force in this respect and that they shall have to play a much bigger part in the protection of our inland fisheries. At the moment I do not think they could do much more than they are doing, but the possibility is that we shall have to increase the personnel in the future. As Deputy Anthony has pointed out they would be very useful in the protection of our inland fisheries.

As to the control of our inland fisheries and the boards of conservators generally, this is a matter which can be dealt with and discussed very much more profitably when the Consolidation Bill comes before the Dáil because that Bill will contain the clauses of the existing Acts dealing with boards of conservators, their constitution and powers and so on. When that comes before the Dáil there will be every opportunity then to suggest a better scheme. I do not say the present scheme is ideal, but when one gets down to suggesting improvements it is not always an easy matter to implement them. However, we shall welcome any suggestions that may be made.

The brown trout fishery is very important. I have no idea as to what its actual value is, but I do admit that it is important particularly to the extent to which it attracts anglers. This is a matter which will be considered very carefully in order to ensure that it is developed to its fullest possible extent. With regard to the supply of ova, there are certain difficulties in the way there. We do make certain grants to local associations—private hatcheries, as Deputy Anthony described them, whether they are owned by an individual or by an angling association. For some time we have been making certain grants to these and if we thought that more money could be usefully spent in that direction I do not think that we would have any difficulty in getting a little more for the purpose.

Has the Minister considered the desirability of promoting pike fishing competitions in brown trout rivers and lakes, because I am told that one pike is capable of destroying a whole hatchery?

The question of keeping pike down in numbers has been considered from time to time. I cannot give the Deputy a definite answer that we have come to the conclusion that such fishing competitions would be useful; perhaps they would.

Every year in Cork we have a cup which is specially competed for in a pike-cleaning competition.

Has the Minister ever considered the possibility of inaugurating a scheme whereby persons would bring pike to the local Gárda station and the sergeant of the Gárda could there cut the tail off the pike, keep it, and pay the person 1d. a lb.? I think that some such scheme as that would do a good deal towards clearing pike out of our rivers.

That may be, but I do not know what the number of pike would be, or what the cost might mount up to in the aggregate.

It would not break you for 12 months and you would take a lot of pike out of the rivers in 12 months.

I suppose you would. Deputy Murphy asked me about the experimental boat. The boat has now been completed and we are merely awaiting the gear before we proceed further.

The Sea Fisheries Association is a trading organisation and I feel that they are best qualified to deal with this matter of supplying fish to shops in local towns. As I have said already, they did try that and the possibility is that they may be disposed to go into it again in the future. It must, however, be remembered that they are a trading organisation and they are bound to do the best they can for their members; they are not justified, therefore, in losing money on a project of that kind unless they have some hope of getting it back again by some expansion of the trade. Unless there is some hope of making the supply to shops in inland towns an economic proposition, I do not think they can do very much about it. I do not think that any Deputy will expect the Government to engage in a business of that kind.

Would the Minister say why that scheme failed when it was tried out before?

I think the Sea Fisheries Association were a little bit too sensitive, for one thing. When they developed the market they handed it over to somebody else to run.

And somebody else flopped.

Somebody else flopped— quite right. I was asked about some individual harbours, but I do not think it is necessary that I should deal with these individual harbours, because what I have said generally covers them all. Wherever there is a good case, from the point of view of fishery development, very sympathetic consideration will be given to it by this representative committee of the various Departments concerned. Take Arklow, for example. That harbour has been considered, and I expect that something will be done about it before very long. Deputy Cogan asked me about the Liffey reservoir and the disease of the fish there. The Liffey reservoir, of course, is private property, owned by the Electricity Supply Board, and we do not, therefore, interfere unless we are asked to. We have been in touch with the investigations that are going on there and, if Deputy Cogan wants it, I could get him a report, but I do not feel that I am at liberty to say anything in public about it without the consent of the Electricity Supply Board.

Is not it brought in by sea birds?

We do not know exactly how it is brought in. There are various theories. Deputy Cafferky spoke about a particular pier at Lecanvey. I was told by an inspector of the Department of Fisheries that he was there recently, that the pier is all right but that there are no boats, so that it is one of those cases where, evidently, the pier was built in the wrong place.

The question raised by Deputy Dockrell, with regard to pollution of the foreshore, is under continuous investigation. A commission sat on that and a very extensive report was issued, about 40 years ago. There has been no great change, certainly no change in bacteriology or chemistry since then and no great change, probably, in the conditions. We have that report but any particular cases will be investigated and, if anything can be done to improve matters, of course, it will be done.

Deputy Walsh has raised, as he says himself, the annual question of setting up a mussel tank at Mornington. I think I informed Deputy Walsh before that when we were setting up a mussel tank, more or less as an experiment, some years ago, we chose County Kerry because it appeared to be a bigger centre at the time than the centre at Mornington. I think we may say now that we feel the experiment was well warranted and that we would be justified in going on with another septic tank as soon as supplies and so on will permit and I think Mornington, or the vicinity at any rate, would probably be the next most important centre. I do not know that Mornington exactly would be the centre but that particular vicinity would probably be the place for a second septic tank to be set up.

The only other point was that raised by both Deputy McFadden and Deputy Bartley, with regard to the exclusive fishery limits. As I said in my opening statement, that question was not raised at the London conference. As I explained, that was an international conference dealing with the supply of fish and the probability of over-fishing in the North Sea. The question of exclusive fishery limits did not come up. That question, so far, anyway, has been one for discussion between the two Governments primarily concerned, that is, the British Government and ourselves, and I think it would be very much better if we can come to an agreement with the British Government on this question of the exclusive fishery limits and, as I said here to-day already, we expect to be able to resume our discussions on the matter in the near future.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share