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.