Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1947

Vol. 106 No. 18

Committee on Finance. - Vote 31-Fisheries.

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £36,610 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, 1948, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including a Grant-in-Aid.

The gross estimated expenditure is £78,682 as against £54,700 last year, an increase of £23,982. The estimated receipts are higher than last year by £5,922, so that the net amount to be provided is £18,060 greater than the sum set down for the year 1946-47. The principal increases occur in the three sub-heads dealing with the Sea Fisheries Association.

A—Salaries.—The items that call for comment are few. The post of chief inspector of fisheries rendered vacant by the superannuation of the former holder is not being filled for the present. Provision is made for a technical assistant and for two additional higher executive officers. The salary of one of these, who is acting as manager of the Sea Fisheries Association, will be refunded by the association and brought to credit in Appropriations-in-Aid — Miscellaneous Receipts. The other will be employed in connection with the abolition of netting in fresh water, to which reference will be made later.

Sub-head B (Travelling Expenses) shows an increase of £225, but sub-head C (Incidentals) and sub-head D (Telegrams, etc.), are exactly similar to the provisions for 1946-47.

Sea Fisheries.—Under this heading there are five sub-heads E (1) to E (5), the total for which is £1,310 against £790 for the previous financial year. The difference of £520 represents the payment in arrear of this country's contribution to the International Council for the Study of the Sea in respect of the year 1940-41, an obligation which was not capable of being discharged at the normal time owing to the war.

Inland Fisheries.—Here again there are five sub-heads F (1) to F (5). They show little variation in the aggregate when compared with the figures for the preceding 12 months. It is a case of £12,810 against £13,860; a net reduction of £1,050. F (1) shows a rise of £200 in the sum entered to meet disbursements to local authorities towards loss of income to them resulting from the exemption accorded (under the Fisheries Act, 1925) to fishery assessments from ordinary local rating. There is also an increase of £100 shown in respect of F (3) (the preservation of State fishery rights). On the other hand, savings of £50 and of £1,300 respectively, are shown on F (2) (Fish Hatcheries) and F (5) (Miscellaneous expenses under the Fisheries Act, 1939).

Under the heading Sea Fisheries Association there are three sub-heads G (1), G (2) and G (3), the total provision for which is being increased from £17,000 to £46,200. Under G (1) is shown the amount of Grant-in-Aid to be made to the association for administration and special development work. The increase of £4,700 in this sub-head is intended partly as a contribution to the cost of experiments on a limited scale to be undertaken by the association to test the possibilities of certain methods of quick freezing, in an effort to solve the problem of alternating gluts and shortages, and partly to carry out further experimental work in fish distribution in rural areas. G (2) shows an increase of £15,000 in the amount of repayable advances to be made to the association for the supply of boats and gear on hire-purchase to its members. Repayments on foot of previous borrowing by the association for like purposes have been satisfactorily met. During the past few years such borrowings have been very light—not because of any slackening in the demand for boats and gear but simply it was virtually impossible to obtain them.

Mr. Brennan

How many boats would the increase represent?

Níl fhios agam. Níl mé cinnte. The boats that we would be handling would range from £20 or £30 to £700. G (3) makes provision for repayable advances to the association in respect of structural development such as the building of new provincial depôts.

No piers.

The final sub-head comprises nine items in all and shows an aggregate increase of £5,922 in the receipts expected to come to credit of this Vote. Three of the items, namely, (4), (5) and (9) account for this increase, the remaining six items being virtually the same in amount as they were for 1946-47. Item (4) is better by £250 than the corresponding entry last year because an enhanced figure has been obtained for the letting of angling rights controlled by the Department. Item (5) shows a rise to £10,000 from the £5,000 appearing in the previous Estimate in respect of anticipated repayments to the Exchequer by the Sea. Fisheries Association on foot of advances made for boats and gear. The increase of more than £700 in Item (9), Miscellaneous Receipts, is attributable mainly to refund by the Sea Fisheries Association of the salary of manager, which is paid out of sub-head A of this Vote.

During the discussion on this Estimate debate last year the House was informed that the results achieved by our sea-fishing industry during 1945 had been satisfactory both as to quantity and value; that the figures were, in fact, the best for a period of 27 years. It is pleasant to report that, in spite of some particularly bad weather towards the close of 1946, the total value of that year's catches was slightly better than the figure of £680,000 recorded for 1945. An important feature was that once more our inshore fishermen, although handicapped by poor conditions of wind and weather, as well as by the difficulties of gear supply, made landings which in relation to the total tonnage of their small vessels were very satisfactory. As regards the operations of the Sea Fisheries Association the directors still have their problems arising from the scarcity of boats, engines and fishing gear with which to outfit many skilled fishermen, whose applications for such facilities have been listed with the Association for anything from one to five years. They hope, however, to find the market position with regard to such requirements considerably easier during the year, and it is this belief which has led them to apply for a larger sum by way of repayable advances, to which reference has been made earlier. The marketing activities of the association continue to be carried on successfully, and at some points, such as Dingle, structural extensions are about to be put in hands. Properly equipped boat building premises are nearing completion at Killybegs, which when finished will constitute a valuable accommodation for members resident on the northwest coast line. The directors have kept in mind the special needs of the part-time fishermen working mainly from curraghs and canoes, and their applications for facilities are always accorded the best possible consideration.

I think it well to refer here to the system in vogue prior to 1931 under which boats and gear were supplied to fishermen—borrowers on their personal bond backed by two solvent sureties— as distinguished from the present method of hire-purchase operated by the association. When our sea-fishing industry became virtually bankrupt in the slump which followed the first world war the borrowers of fishery loans could not meet their obligations, and their sureties pleaded that as the conditions prevailing could not have been foreseen when they signed the documents, they were unable to meet their obligations. After a long and careful survey of each loan account (there were some hundreds of them) it became evident that there was no alternative to the writing-off of nearly £100,000. Under the enabling statute —i.e., Fisheries Revision of Loans Act, 1931, the arrears were being written off in batches up to the year 1939, and schedules of particulars were duly laid on the Table of the House. Partly owing to the diversion of staff to more urgent duties in the emergency, and partly to avoid misunderstanding about the writing-off of loan arrears at a period when fishermen were making exceptionally good earnings, action was suspended. The time has come, however, to clear up the matter finally, and I have directed that the needful be done as soon as possible. I just mention the subject to make it clear that the balance of these old arrears to be written off (total is about £20,000) refers to transactions which, in the main, originated some 30 years ago—most of the borrowers together with their sureties having since passed away. The present position about repayment for boats and gear supplied through the association is, as already indicated, satisfactory.

Arrangements for setting up a properly equipped and well managed deep-sea trawling company, the shareholding in which would be available to the public at large, have not been completed. There have been various conferences on the subject, but so far no real progress has been made. As the fishery authority, I am interested in the establishment of a trawling company only in so far as its operations would supplement the landings of the in-shore fleet to provide sea fish for the home market. The interests of the inshore fishermen would be the primary consideration.

Parts I, II, III and VI of the Fisheries Act, 1939, have, with the exception of some half-a-dozen sections, been brought into force. As from 1st January, 1948, Sections 35 and 36 will come into operation, and all netting in fresh water (subject to a few specified exceptions, such as the conduct of scientific investigations, or the use of a landing net by an angler, etc.), will be prohibited. This abolition of fresh-water netting is being carried out on a compensatory basis on principles laid down in Section 35. The effect of removing the nets from the fresh water portions of our rivers will be to increase the head of fish ascending to the spawning beds and, therefore, must naturally lead to an increase in the stock of the rivers, with greater potential catches for anglers. The advantages accruing from this cessation of fresh-water netting would, however, be offset to some extent, in four or five years' time, by increased captures of fish by nets in the estuaries when the larger stock of fish was returning from its sojourn in the sea. For that reason, the Act provides means in Section 37 for the gradual restriction of netting in the public estuaries. Consequently, within the next two or three years it will be appropriate to bring Section 37 also into operation. With regard to Parts IV and V of the 1939 Act, the operation of which had to be postponed when the emergency conditions obtained, it may be said that preliminaries for the engineering procedure involved are well in hands. This concerns the gradual taking over by the Minister (again on a compensatory basis) of all estuarine fisheries now privately held. The process will of necessity be gradual, because the working out of such a transfer will be a complicated and tedious process. The ultimate objective, however, is the working of all these fisheries by the State in the public interest.

Consolidation of the Fisheries Statutes.—There were enacted from 1842 onwards some 30 Acts dealing with fisheries; and, in addition, there were several other Acts (e.g. Acts dealing with electricity supply, drainage, etc.) passed with a direct bearing on the subject. During the past three years my Department, in consultation with the Parliamentary draftsman, has been getting into shape a consolidation measure designed to bring within one statute the entire set of fishery laws, of which in their present form there has been long-standing complaint from both lawyers and laymen. In the process of consolidation a great many points of overlap and of inconsistency (with particular regard to definitions), are being cleared up; and there is with the printers at the moment a volume comprising our fishery law as it now stands. Before final consolidation can be achieved there are some outstanding matters for which we must provide. Therefore a Fisheries (Amendment) Bill will be introduced with the object of clearing up the outstanding points, and when this latest Act is passed it will be amalgamated with the volume now in course of printing, and so we shall bring into being a complete Fisheries (Consolidation) Act. The great advantage of having available the volume in question is that all concerned with the subject can thus see what exactly will be the effect of the proposed amending measure upon the law as it now stands.

Exclusive Fishery Limits.—In conclusion, some comment is due upon the long-standing question of our exclusive fishery limits. All that can be said, however, for the moment is that informal discussions between the officers of my Department and those of the British Ministry concerned, which had to be postponed during the war years, were resumed last year. The whole matter is not one that can be dealt with offhand but on our side no avoidable delay is being permitted to occur, and I hope there will be no avoidable delay in this House in giving me this Estimate.

Mr. Corish

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. In the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, there was a good deal of criticism from this and other sides of the House, and I am sure it did a great deal of good. This motion was put down for the purpose of calling the Minister's attention to a number of matters concerning our fisheries and I hope that even though the Minister is a tired man he will devote a comparatively long time to his reply on this Estimate. I do not think I will be the first to refer to the Department of Fisheries as the cinderella department of the Government, but I believe it is. I would suggest that a little bit more attention should be paid both by the Minister and the House to this little industry of ours.

It is indeed one of our most important national sources and one of the most accessible but the fishing industry has not thrived to any great extent. The past five or six years were the emergency war period, but it can be said that it has made very little improvement in the 25 years we have had of native government. I would submit that there are a few causes which are responsible for this. First of all, there are no proper facilities provided for our fishermen and they do not get an adequate return for their labour. We have not a very big home market here, but in so far as we have, the supplies to it are not always adequate.

Before the present Government came into office they visualised that the fishing industry could be made worth a substantial amount of money. I can refer to a statement made by the present Taoiseach in 1929 when he said that by a policy of active assistance, the yield of the industry could be increased to a level of about £2,000,000 a year and those are 1929 figures. I am sure they would be substantially more to-day if the industry had got the active assistance which the present Taoiseach promised in 1929.

From what I know of the fisheries and the fishermen, I do believe that especially around the east coast, the Wexford coast, the part with which I am most familiar, they have not the proper facilities to glean the harvest which is in the Irish Sea and the other seas around our country, and it has always occurred to me that in this particular industry the Department do not see the advantages of a long-term policy—that they are not prepared to spend money on such a policy although they have a definite guarantee it will repay it in a very short number of years, and if proper landing facilities were provided the expenditure would be justified in a very short time.

It has also begun to appear to me that it was futile for those engaged in the industry to try to seek those facilities from the Department. It has become harder to convince them that the fishing industry can become very profitable. In that respect, might I say also that we can have a very big home market? I do not think that we have a very big home market at present because, generally speaking, we are not a fish-eating people. We may say we eat fish on Fridays but in the majority of cases I know, around the country, apart from restaurants and hotels, people eat very little fish on Friday— they prefer to have some other type of vegetable meal because in the first place they cannot even in seaport towns get fish on Fridays and even when they can, the price is prohibitive. We see fish landed at the port of Wexford and it is swept away to Dublin and other centres a few hundred miles away before the local people have an opportunity of buying at all.

While I must mention that fishermen in most cases have not proper facilities for fishing and landing their catches generally, I will be excused if I draw particular attention to the case of Ballyconigar which has no facilities at the present time. Men have to wade up to their thighs in water to push out their boats to catch the fish, and this early in the morning. It is indeed primitive. They are trying to make a little money for themselves because they are all small farmers trying to supplement their yearly income by engaging in the fishing industry.

It is useless to say that the building of a pier would not be justified at places like Ballyconigar and Blackwater, because an agitation has been going on for 30 years. If these people have been engaged in agitation for 20 or 30 years, surely they know there is fish there, and I would ask from the Department some little encouragement and some assistance to help them to make the fishing industry a success.

There may be certain objections that the cost is prohibitive at the moment, but if the Department want to be certain about the fishing industry, they should take a long-term view and believe the people when they say that the expenditure will be justified, if not in four or five years to come, then in ten or 15 years, and for that period it will be worth it. There is another spot, Carne, in the south of County Wexford. There is a pier there, but for a long time it has been out of repair, and the people have asked the Department to give them some assistance to repair it. The main fishery is for lobsters, cod, mackerel and herring, and all that is wanted is some attention to a storm wall and that the end of the pier should be turned to provide shelter for boats and to store boxes and give adequate protection against storms and inclement weather.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Corish

At present the wall is falling into the sea and damaging the store boxes and boats. I suggest to the Minister that he should give assistance as quickly as possible. The pier could be kept in repair for a reasonably small amount of money and by reason of that the fishermen could engage more actively in their industry.

With regard to the protection of our fishermen I should like to know from the Minister, having Wexford in mind again, whether we have got any agreements with other countries as to what our exclusive fishing limits are. I think that two years ago the previous Minister gave some undertaking in regard to that. Is there any likelihood of such an agreement being reached in the near future? Two or three weeks ago, Deputy Keating who comes from South Wexford, had a question down about this. He asserted that the foreign trawlers were coming in close to the coast at night and taking away the fishing harvest. They had the advantage of having deep-sea trawlers, the advantage of speed and I suppose in some cases of better equipment, as against our fishermen with their small boats. It is very annoying to our fishermen to find, when they go out, that the harvest in fish has been taken by these foreign trawlers. I think the Minister indicated that he would bring Deputy Keating's complaint to the notice of the Department of Defence. I hope he will insist that his colleague will take the necessary steps to deal with these foreign trawlers.

I think the Minister was a little bit optimistic about the provision of gear and equipment for our fishermen. I should like to remind him that at the moment, in the case of our inshore fishermen, there is a big scarcity of cotton, twine and hemp. Can he say whether there is any prospect of good supplies of these commodities being available in a short time? The Minister also mentioned that there is an additional sum of £15,000 to be made available for the Sea Fisheries Association for advances for boats and gear. I was glad to hear him say that the people who had got advances from the association had lived up to their obligations and had paid the instalments due on their loans. I think that should be an encouragement to him to make a little more money available not only for those people who have done so well in that respect, but for other fishermen who may be in need of the same type of accommodation from the Sea Fisheries Association. I am sure that they also would live up to their obligations in the matter of repaying the instalments. This type of financial aid might be given on a more generous scale. If that were done it would help to put our fishing industry in a thriving position.

I mentioned earlier that in my opinion fishermen were not getting an adequate return for their labours. I think I am fairly right in making that assertion. I do not want to go into the matter in too great detail, but I have here a receipt for five boxes of fish containing plaice and ray—25 stone of fish—which were sent to Dublin by three Wexford fishermen. After deductions had been made for cartage, carriage, commission, tolls and empties these fishermen were presented with a cheque for 5/2. It took them 16 hours to gather the 25 stone of fish. Surely Deputies will agree that was no return for their hard work, and for the grave risks and exposure to the elements which they had to endure. I am sure there was a substantial increase on that 5/2 by the time the shopkeepers had sold the 25 stone of fish to their customers in Dublin. There is also the case of a man who sent up nine boxes of turbot for which he received 25/-. It may be that in the first case I have mentioned the 5/2 for the 25 stone of fish was unusual, but I think everyone will agree that a return of 25/- for 45 stone of fish was certainly quite inadaquate for our fishermen. The harvesting of that fish represented 16 hours of hard work, risk and exposure for three men.

I should like to draw attention to the difference there is in the price which the consumer pays in the shop for fish and what our fishermen are getting from the various markets. Prices have certainly not changed substantially in the period between 1945 and the present. In 1945 the price of herrings on the export market was 2.5d. and on the home market 1.8d. The price of mackerel in 1945 on the export market was 3.85d. per lb., and on the home market 1.3d. per lb. In the case of herrings, the difference between the price in the home market and on the export market is so big that it should call for some explanation. While the fishermen were getting 1.8d. for herrings the consumer was paying 7d. and 8d. for them in the shops. The fishermen were getting 1.3d. per lb. for mackerel in the home market while the handlers and the shopkeepers were charging the consumers 1/4 per lb. for it. The fishermen were getting 1/5 per lb. for sole at a time when in Dublin shops the consumer was paying 3/- and 3/6 per lb. for it. In 1945 when the fishermen were getting 3.2d. per lb. for whiting the price in the Dublin shops was 7d. and 8d. per lb. My submission is that the fishermen who have to take all the risks, to work hard throughout the night, who are exposed to the elements and to all the risks associated with the sea, should get a better return for their labours than the figures which I have quoted indicate they are getting. In my opinion there should be a minimum price paid to fishermen for the different classes of fish. If there is a glut on the market, the unfortunate fishermen should not have to bear the entire loss involved. Prices are governed, to a large extent, by supply and demand and when there is a glut the price will go down. But there are periods when fish is scarce and the Minister did mention that something would be done to preserve fish when there is a glut. I hope that idea will be developed and that quick freezing plant will be installed in some of the centres, possibly Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Kerry, and that fish that is surplus at particular times will be put into storage for use at periods of scarcity.

Regarding river fishing, there is to my knowledge scarcity of netting and twine. I hope the Minister will see that they are provided for the fishermen who are engaged mainly in salmon fishing. The Minister mentioned a regulation whereunder nets must be removed from the river on Saturday or from a certain vicinity of a river and removed to the fisherman's home or to some other place which might be some distance from the river. It has been represented to me that that involves a hardship to the fishermen especially to those that I know best, that is, the fishermen on the River Slaney. I do not know what is the meaning of the regulation. It seems nonsensical to them.

We could improve the home market if we could induce our people to eat more fish. At present, when there is a scarcity of food in the world, and, to some extent in this country, we in this House and the Minister and his Department in particular could do a little more to encourage people to eat fish. I will not try to suggest how that may be done, but by encouragement and by providing better facilities to the public we could induce them to eat more fish than they are at present in the habit of eating. That would save other types of food which are badly needed and which to a certain extent we need for export. If our people could be persuaded to substitute a fish meal for another type of meal it would provide a variation of diet which would be an improvement from the point of view of health, and, I think, from the point of view of their pocket. Although fish, at present, is expensive it compares very favourably in price with some meats. There are some people who have for their mid-day meal a mixed grill of rashers, sausages and other varieties of meat. They imagine they are getting a cheap meal, but when the cost of three or four different types of meat is taken into account, they could have got three fish dinners or three dinners of some other type for the same money. We must provide better facilities if we want our people to be a fish-eating people. I have instanced Wexford town—I am sure it applies to many other ports—where fish landed at the port is whipped away to Dublin and the people in the town get no opportunity of buying it. It is a well-known fact that fish that is landed at these ports has to be ordered by people in those towns from, in some cases, the Sea Fisheries Association. If a person in Carlow wants fish for a hotel or institution on Friday it has to be ordered a week in advance from Dublin. It is a paradoxical state of affairs. If we could devise a method of distribution which would eliminate this added cost of transport and carriage, we would be able to build up our home market and make the fishing industry a thriving one.

I do not think anybody can raise any very serious objection to the provision of the additional money that the Minister is seeking on this occasion. Ninety per cent. of it is to be devoted to the purchase of boats and gear for fishermen. I am sorry the Minister could not sound a more confident note with regard to the possibility of obtaining the materials and equipment necessary for the provision of these boats. From his statement, it appears to me that the situation has not changed in any material sense since last year. The Minister's advisers are banking on the possibility of there being some improvement in the situation in the next few months but, judging by what we can learn from fishermen in the country, there appears to be very little hope that the number of boats engaged in fishing will be increased substantially during the coming year. We know perfectly well that there is a big number of applications in the Department at the present time and that some of them have been there for a number of years but that, owing to the precarious situation in regard to supplies, the Minister has been unable to help these applicants in any way. It appears at the moment as if that situation will continue for an indefinite period.

I asked the Minister, in the course of his statement, if he would state precisely in what way the £9,900 which is provided in the Estimate for Advances for General Employment would be spent and he said it was intended to devote it exclusively to the provision of depôts. It has always seemed to me a short-sighted policy on the part of the Sea Fisheries Association to provide loans for boats when in the majority of instances the people who had the boats had no proper harbour or pier facilities for them. That matter was referred to on a number of occasions by other Deputies. I referred to it on one occasion. I know that all along the western seaboard fishermen who have purchased boats by means of loans from the Sea Fisheries Association have found on a number of occasions their boats very seriously damaged because there were no proper harbour facilities. Despite that experience the Sea Fisheries Association have made no provision for such eventualities.

It is time steps were taken to secure some guarantee from the people who get these boats that they will be properly secured and so far as possible that they will be kept in safe harbours where there is no risk of the boats being damaged. I agree very largely with what Deputy Corish has said. We have been discussing these Estimates since I first entered this House in 1924 and Minister after Minister has repeated what we have heard this afternoon, yet the fishing industry has remained in the same static position as it was in from the first year these Estimates were debated.

When the present Minister gets time, I hope he will make some effort to provide a serious plan for the development of the fishing industry. From time to time, we have been given to understand by many responsible leaders, both in the Fianna Fáil Party and in other Parties, that this industry is capable of tremendous expansion. I think the Taoiseach himself on one occasion said that it could be almost as important as agriculture itself. Since the Fianna Fáil Party got into power, they have made no serious effort to exploit the industry or extend the possibilities of its development.

In the course of his statement, the Minister referred to the depression in the industry which followed the last war. During the recent war, most of the fish caught in this country were exported to Britain, as the fishing boats in Britain were commandeered by the Admiralty and utilised for war purposes. That meant there was a good market for our fish in Britain. Those fishing boats are back again at the business for which they were built originally and the British market has contracted very seriously. We know that our market in America for mackerel has contracted to a considerable extent in recent years. If we spend money in developing this industry, can we be assured we will have a market for the fish in this country?

I agree with Deputy Corish that no serious effort has ever been made to develop the home market for fish. Before ever a Sea Fisheries Association was heard of, fish was obtainable on several days of the week, even in backward rural areas. Up to recent years, fish was carted round and sold in rural districts all along the western seaboard on two, three or four days of the week. That did not happen very often, I admit, but the fish was so plentiful that it could be purchased by dealers, who brought it around the country; and, after all, they must have been able to make a decent profit out of it. Now, despite the fact that we have organised the industry in a scientific and business-like way, fish is absolutely unobtainable, even in seaport towns. I know one town where certain individuals tried to secure fish on three or four consecutive weeks and could not get fish of any description. Surely, if we have a Sea Fisheries Association, one of its first functions should be to see that the industry is properly organised and then that there is a proper system of distribution? Some years ago, I believe they tried to devise some system of distributing fish, but they put the actual work of distribution in the hands of some other people. Through some circumstances which I do not understand, those people failed to discharge their responsibility and the position has remained in that state ever since.

I seriously suggest it is time some effort was made to put this industry on a proper footing. I know perfectly well that the Minister has not had an opportunity yet of mastering even the elementary details of the industry, but I suggest it is time he made some plan to put it on a business basis. Then, if he feels it is not capable of paying its way, let responsible leaders cease talking of its possibilities. The Minister's predecessor mentioned last year that he was causing inquiries to be made into the possibility of establishing a deep sea trawling company here. Since then, apparently, very little progress has been made in that direction. I assume that the people who would put their money in a deep sea trawling company would be deeply interested in deep sea fishing and satisfied that it would be a success. I do not know if that is the reason why so little progress has been made and I would be interested to hear the Minister's reply on that point. He knows perfectly well that it is a big problem at the moment, owing to the outside competition which probably would be keener in the future than it has been in the past. However, if we are going to have an adequate supply of fish, we will have to supplement the efforts of the inshore fishermen by those of the deep sea trawling fishermen.

The Minister did not give the figures relating to the value of fish purchased last year, nor did he give the quantities landed in this country last year. I am interested in these figures only for comparative purposes. They are very important, so that we may be in a position to know whether the year 1946 was better than 1945. I think it was the practice of the Minister's predecessors to give those figures each year, but so far as I can see from the copy of the Minister's speech which I have just got, no such figures have been given for years. If they are available, I would ask the Minister to be so good as to let us have them in his reply.

It is time that the whole series of enactments relating to the fishing industry was codified. There has been a general demand by legal men for that codification, not merely of the legal enactments but of the regulations. There are some thousands of regulations relating to the fishing industry, which have been made under the various Acts. It would be advisable to have them codified and published in some simple form, so that one could refer to them and identify them easily when necessary. Presumably, in addition to the actual codification, the Minister proposes to introduce certain amendments to the Act of 1939, which seems to have been brought into operation in piecemeal fashion. Some of the clauses are operating already and others will operate in due course.

There is one section relating to estuaries, which experience has shown already needs amendment in certain vital respects. The Minister told us that net fishing in fresh water at the beginning of next year will be illegal, but fishing in estuaries will continue for a number of years hence. The prevention of netting in fresh water will be negatived by the privilege which the owners of estuaries will still enjoy, for the present at all events. I am not satisfied that the prevention of netting in fresh water will prevent a decrease of salmon and trout and other valuable fish but while these fish may escape the poacher and others and may increase for the present, there is the danger that a decrease could be caused by the estuary fishermen. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.
Supplementary Estimates (Agriculture, Agricultural Produce Subsidies, and Universities and Colleges) reported and agreed to.
Top
Share