Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1950

Vol. 123 No. 13

Private Deputies' Business. - Iceland Trade Agreement.

My question was:

"To ask the Minister for Agriculture whether he is aware that the fishermen along the east coast are very perturbed over the recent trade agreement with Iceland, which provides for the importation of fish into this country, and whether he can give an assurance that the agreement will not have detrimental effects on the fishing industry here."

The Minister for Agriculture replied:

"Ireland has not undertaken in this trade agreement to import fish from Iceland. The agreement provides that each country shall accord all reasonable facilities for the admission of the products of the other, but any imports from Iceland would be subject to the existing restrictions which are not in any way altered by the agreement."

I want to make it clear that while I welcome an agreement with any friendly country I must voice my disapproval of any agreement that will cut across our own industries. I have here a Press notice which reads:

"Iceland exports consist principally of fish and fish products. Of a special interest to Ireland is fishmeal which is an important feeding stuff for poultry. Other Icelandic products are fish-oil, including cod liver oil, poultry oil...."

I have here a copy of National Planning which the Minister for External Affairs who drew up this agreement had on the hustings. His fourth objective was:

"The creation and development of large inshore and deep-sea fishing fleets and the production of byproducts such as fish and fish-oil."

The Minister for Agriculture was reported in the Irish Press on November 7th as follows:

"Mr. Dillon, Minister for Agriculture, said that the Government had agreed to a new departure for the fisheries. All working fishermen could become members of the Sea Fisheries Association which would be the only body entitled to land fish for sale in the home market. The association would pay guaranteed prices for demersal fish landed and for marketing and would supply on easy credit terms boats and gear."

The Minister is running true to form and that form is that he makes one statement when he meets people who are producing something in the country, another statement to somebody who is consuming something in the country and another statement at any time he likes. The principal way in which he is running true to form is that he would prefer to import than to produce in the country. The Labour Party members have left the House I see.

We have a rather sparse attendance on all sides.

I have no objection to trade agreements, but I have a distinct objection to any agreement that cuts across our very much neglected fishing industry. Only a fortnight ago a question was asked in this House whether the fishermen could be compensated for the amount of fish landed on the Dublin market which had to be dumped as there was no sale for them. Notwithstanding that, we are going to import something we should be able to produce ourselves. I see a reference in the trade agreement to fish meal. I have often spoken in this House on the possibility of developing that industry.

You had 15 years and why did you not develop it? Divil a' much developing you did.

In three years you have undone anything we had done in 15. I would compliment you on the very good job you made of it. It is very hard to understand the position of the inter-Party Government. They have completely abandoned their election promises and have succeeded slowly but surely in killing any national enterprise we were developing and which we would have continued to develop had we remained in office.

We had a fishing industry in my own constituency, but instead of having a fresh fish at reasonable prices, on account of the beggarly way the whole thing was tackled in regard to boats, gear and harbours, in a few short years we will have no fishermen. I have been trying as far as I possibly could to get the Minister for Agriculture to improve our harbours and boats, and I have spoken about the possibility of erecting quick-freezing plants, canning industries or anything at all to help our industry, but now I see that the Minister for External Affairs, who was so deeply concerned with national planning, has decided that the easy way to do it is to import. I do not know whether he has fallen in line with the Minister for Agriculture or whether the Minister for Agriculture has fallen in line with him, but I have come to the conclusion that neither of them is concerned with the fishing industry.

Why is it that in Norway the fishing industry is worth over £5,000,000, while in Ireland it is worth only a very small amount? I raised this matter purely and simply from the national point of view. The Minister for Agriculture has made so many statements from time to time regarding the fishing industry that he cannot make up his mind what he wants. Instead of giving encouragement to the industry he has declared that he hated fish so much that he would sooner have an egg. You cannot expect the industry to improve when a Minister is in office who will ridicule fish to that degree.

God help the Minister for Health; he must live on pills.

In Norway, Sweden and other countries they have succeeded in making fishing a worthwhile industry. May I ask the Minister if he is really anxious to kill our national economy? I am only judging him and I think I am reasonably charitable towards him, but as far as I can see he is so anxious slowly but surely to kill the industry that he has agreed that the Minister for External Affairs is right to import fish. The few harbours that are left can go derelict while the few boats that are left have no fishermen to go out on them.

We have not harbours and boats on this question.

I respectfully suggest that it has a bearing on this matter.

The Deputy's question reads as follows:—

"To ask the Minister for Agriculture whether he is aware that the fishermen along the east coast are very perturbed over the recent trade agreement with Iceland which provides for the importation of fish into this country and whether he can give an assurance that the agreement will not have detrimental effects on the fishing industry here."

Anything which the Deputy says must be restricted to that. We cannot have a discussion on harbours, fishing boats and so forth, on this question.

If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will allow me for a moment I have already told the House that I would not have raised this matter at all except to deal with it from the national side. In order to deal with the matter from the national side, I must refer to the manner in which the industry has been treated.

In that case, the Deputy should have drafted a different question. I must deal with the terms of the question which was on the Order Paper to-day.

I bow to the ruling of the Chair. If the Minister continues to import fish into this country, it will mean that whatever little bit of the fishing industry is left—during the past three years the Minister for Agriculture has succeeded in killing it reasonably well—will be ruined. If the Minister continues to import fish and to encourage trade agreements of the kind specified in the question, the very few people employed in the fishing industry will lose their employment. Even after three years of experience and after three years of advice from his officers and from this side of the House, can the Minister not make up his mind to deal with the fishing industry on a national basis because, as things are, the Minister is surely killing the industry? These agreements between countries are good, up to a point. These agreements between friendly nations have to be accepted, and that is as it should be. However, I cannot understand how the Minister can agree to import fish into this island when we can catch plenty of it ourselves and at least give our people all the fish they require. This country is but a small little island, and long before either the Minister or myself was born, in their own way the people were able to handle the fishing industry better than they are able to handle it now. Is it the policy of the Minister to kill the national fishing industry and to encourage and help the industry of another country? I must say that that is the only thing that I can understand from his actions, in view of the statements made in this House from time to time and in view of the experience I have of the fishing industry in my own part of the country and throughout the country generally. The whole thing has been mishandled——

Hear, hear!

For the past three years.

If the widows were encouraged to eat more fish it might help.

That is a very gentlemanly remark, I must say. I am dealing with inshore sea fishing. The Minister for Agriculture told the Seanad what he was going to do for the fishing industry, and he made a lot of laudable promises. Will the Minister ever get down to realities, or has he ever succeeded in doing anything except in making wild promises about what he is going to do for the industry? With regard to my own area, the Minister promised me that he was going to give a certain grant towards a pier.

I cannot allow that.

I am only going to deal with it in the abstract.

It is like the Balbriggan widow—Mrs. 'Arris—she is in the abstract.

I might inform the Minister that that kindly lady has married again.

More power to her elbow. Is her husband in the abstract too?

The Minister is up to his usual tactics.

Mr. Murphy

He could not help it when you are there.

He tries to be smart and personal and to make innuendoes when it suits him. He has succeeded very well.

——in abstracting fish from the sea.

Mr. Murphy

——in killing the cods.

When the Dublin market is glutted with fish, he can tell his officers in the Sea Fisheries Association to dump the fish back in the sea. Although he is dumping the fish in the sea, thus depriving poor people of fish at a reasonable price, nevertheless, that very same Minister is anxious to import fish from other countries.

The Deputy will give the Minister ten minutes now.

I hope that when the Minister is replying we shall at least get some facts from him and hear something other than promises of what he is going to do for the industry which he has succeeded only too well in killing during his three years in office, along with other national industries.

There is one category of fish which I am bound by international agreement to admit to this country without restriction in all circumstances, and that is cured fish. The reason why I am compelled to allow in unlimited quantities of that fish from Great Britain is because I am bound, under an agreement signed by Deputy Dr. Ryan when he was Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in 1938. Now, that is the only category of fish which I have no power to stop. The reason why I have no power to stop it is because Deputy Dr. Ryan signed an agreement with the British Government in 1938 binding himself, for the duration of that agreement, never to stop it.

Now, apart from that, there is no category of fish which can be offered at our ports that I have not the power to prohibit absolutely. I am now giving full and fair notice, at home and abroad, that if this House and the Seanad passes the Sea Fisheries Bill, 1950, I shall prohibit the landing of fish on the shores of this country by anybody other than the inshore fishermen of our own country. There is not a line, a paragraph or an implication in the trade agreement made with Iceland which, in any degree, restricts my absolute power, as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, to prohibit the import of all fish on any day and for any time. Everybody, at home and abroad, knows now that it is the declared policy of the Government to prohibit all such imports so soon as the volume of the landings of our inshore fishermen is sufficient to meet the domestic market requirements.

It is true that I dislike animadverting on the shortcomings of my predecessors, but, when discussions of this kind are initiated by the Opposition, it becomes my duty to do so. Through the gross ineptitude of my predecessors, the situation had developed here, when I took office, that the inshore fishing industry was indelibly associated in the minds of the public of this country with inadequate supplies of fish at excessive prices. It has taken me some time to eradicate from the public mind any such concept, and to make our own people realise that the inshore fishermen of this country do not claim any right, and had no desire, to maintain a situation of quasi-famine in the fish market here: that their whole aim is simply to supply the domestic market, and that they welcome the introduction of supplies of fish from abroad to ensure an abundance for consumers in this country until such time as they, by their efforts, can themselves provide it.

I have, accordingly, provided that, in addition to the landings of our inshore fishermen, there shall be regularly brought from abroad such quantities of fish as may be required to ensure that an adequate supply of fish will be available for consumers at all times, and that any fortuitous profit earned on these imports of fish will be sequestrated, not for the enrichment of any individual importer but for the endowment of the inshore fishery organisation. I intend to continue that policy, and I intend to guarantee to the consumers of this country a full and varied supply of whatever kind of fish they want from the catches of the inshore fishermen, supplemented by imports from Denmark, Great Britain, Iceland, or from wherever else the best fish can be bought at the cheapest price.

Deputy Burke through malignancy— not, I think, the stupidity he dissembled—sought to revive the canard about the dumping of fish. He knows, just as well as I do, that what happened on that occasion was that, with an abundant supply of herrings on the Dublin market, which is the hawkers' fish, caught by men who went out at night and worked all night to catch them, a few irresponsible "goms" on the north shore in Dublin went out and practised what, in my considered opinion, is the dirty trick of bag-netting close to the shore, shoaling whiting so small that they were too lazy to go to the trouble of gutting them. They dumped that fish into lorries, drove it into the Dublin market and threw it into the Dublin market, thereby destroying the market for the herrings which hard-working fishermen had spent a long night at sea catching and despatching to the Dublin market.

Now, I want to tell the tulips who think that they can exploit their neighbours by dumping unlimited quantities of ungutted small whiting on the Dublin market that I hope every stone of it will be left over when it is offered on the market. If it is, it will be consigned to the fish-meal factory which was not there in the days of the Fianna Fáil Government, and there will be converted into fish meal, and the price paid for it will not pay for the petrol which was used to carry it to the market. If any of the Deputy's astute neighbours think that they can conjure up for themselves ignorant public sympathy they had better learn that the public are not as silly as they take them to be. The public are well able to judge of activities of that kind. The people who dumped small ungutted whiting on the Dublin market did it for the purpose of injuring their neighbours and of disorganising the market where hard-working men sought to earn an honest living. I give them notice now that they never will be allowed to succeed in that kind of activity, and that every time they try it it will cost them money. They need not worry that it will be dumped in the sea or that there will be any publicity about it. It will be discreetly removed to the fish-meal factory to be converted into fish meal, and all that they will get will be a debit note to meet the cost of carting it from the market to which it ought never have been brought by the rogues who trade in it.

I was dealing solely with the national side of this question. The Minister has been dealing with individuals.

The Deputy cannot make a speech. He can ask one question.

I want to deal with the national side of this question.

If the Deputy has a question to ask he should ask it.

Why did the Minister not deal with the national side of this question and not start with a few individuals?

That is your answer to the national side of the industry?

To the rogues for whom you speak in this House.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 14th December, 1950.

Top
Share