Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Mar 1952

Vol. 130 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Sea Fisheries Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Dunne

Recently a very important announcement appeared in the newspapers, an announcement which was of very great significance to fishermen throughout Europe and particularly in Ireland: that after 30 years of discussion, consideration and effort on the part of Norway the International Court at The Hague had decided that that country was entitled to extend its fishery limits beyond the existing three mile boundary which had been in operation for so long. I think—and it is felt too by fishermen all around our coasts—that the authority which is being set up under this Bill should make it one of its principal objectives to win for this country a right similar to that which has been achieved by Norway; in other words, that our fishing limits should be extended by law and recognised internationally up to at least ten miles as is about to be the case in Norway and possibly in other countries. That principle has been established by the appropriate international authority. It has this significance for our people: we have been reading over the years of the poaching of our fishing grounds by foreign trawlers and anybody who has journeyed around some of our southern fishing ports such as Bantry and Valentia in Cork and Kerry and who has spoken there with the inshore fishermen is aware of their complaints that these Spanish trawlers which regularly find shelter in these ports have, because of the nature of their operations, been doing a good deal of damage to the fishing grounds off our southern and south-west coasts. One of the principal reasons for that damage has been the fact that our fishing limits are confined to three miles and that boats which fish slightly outside that limit cannot be interfered with. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any steps have been taken by the Government to improve the position in that regard; whether any representations have been made to The Hague on behalf of this country to extend our fishery limits because not alone is it a matter of concern to our fishermen but, as will be seen by every Deputy in this House and by most people in the country, also a matter of considerable importance from the point of view of the extension of our national sovereignty, the extension, if you like, of our territory.

This board, which is proposed to be set up under the Bill, is an organisation with regard to which we should like to have some information. First of all, is it proposed that the chairman of the board should be, as heretofore, a civil servant? I do not think that the board should be so constituted. By reason of their background and occupation civil servants are not adequately equipped from the point of view of outlook for the job which must be tackled: the rejuvenation of our inshore fishing industry. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary and recommend very strongly that if he cast about he might possibly find even within the limits of our existing public services some more suitable type of official such as a master mariner. It is of interest that in Britain the board which controls the fishing industry has as chairman a seaman, a rear admiral, and a man of that type is required in that post in this country, a man who knows the sea and who knows the job as it were from its beginnings to its logical ending. I do not think that a person who has had no seafaring experience, who has not been a fisherman himself, who has not the hard practical knowledge of the industry, would be a suitable person for the chairmanship of this board.

Secondly, I think it right that the board should be organised on as near as possible to a vocational basis. Why should not the fishermen have the right of nomination, selection or election of their own representatives to the board? Why should not the democratic principle of election apply in this case? Surely, if any good is to be done by this Bill, it is essential that the fishermen around the coasts will have confidence in the board set up to operate its provisions. I would commend to the Parliamentary Secretary consideration of the point of view that the various interests, at least the interests of the fishermen, would best be safeguarded by giving to them the rights to appoint their own representatives on the board.

The question of fish prices is of paramount importance. Last week during the discussion on the Bill I heard some statements about private enterprise and its advantages. Some Deputies seemed to decry the fact that the Bill proposes, to some extent at least, what could be described as State enterprise and seems to put its main reliance upon the State's ability to provide the wherewithal for the regeneration of this industry. Anybody who has studied the industry knows that private enterprise has done more damage to the inshore fishermen in this country than any other single force could have done. The real trouble with the inshore men at the present time is that they are completely at the mercy of private enterprise and of certain interests whose only desire is, not that the inshore men should prosper or thrive, but to make the maximum amount of money out of the fish that is landed and pay as little as they possibly can for it to the men who go down to the sea and come back with the catch and who sometimes do not come back. Private enterprise in this context would, in my view, if given a free hand, reduce the inshore fishing industry to an even lower and worse condition than that in which it now finds itself. There was a good deal of wishful thinking by Deputies when they addressed their minds to this problem of fish and, as I indicated last week, I think it is just ridiculous to be talking of building up here a fishing industry comparable with that existing in Norway or countries of that kind. I do not think that we can hope in our generation or possibly for several generations to be able to capture world markets. For that reason, I fear that if we venture too quickly with the proposition of providing a deep sea fishing fleet we will, in the end, not do very much good, but will succeed in wiping out a great deal of our present inshore fishing fleet, not that it is very large indeed.

From such information as we can obtain it appears that there are only approximately 181 boats of between 18 feet and 50 feet at present operating off our coasts. It would seem that, in all, the total number of vessels and boats engaged in fishing is roughly 4,000 and of that number only 710 are equipped with any kind of motor power. Approximately 3,500 depend on oars and sails. Roughly 10,000 people try to seek their living by fishing. If we cannot organise the industry so as to enable these people to get a fair living and a continuous return for their efforts, what is the use in our talking about building up world markets with a deep sea fishing fleet?

I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that he proposed to provide deep sea boats which would fish in distant grounds. Yet the impression has got abroad that the biggest boat which will be provided will be an 80ft. boat. Fishermen tell you that an 80ft. boat will not be fit to fish distant grounds. It will be unable to travel to distant grounds to fish. It can do an immeasurable amount of economic harm if we have a number of 80ft. boats, allegedly for use as a deep sea fleet, in competition with our inshore fleet. We can easily see what can happen to our inshore fishermen who are inadequately equipped with smaller boats, boats of considerably less horse-power and considerably less storage space, and so on.

I am strongly of the view that we should be, first of all, concerned with looking after those who are now engaged in fishing around the coast and putting the industry into some kind of economic condition. We should take every possible step that is necessary to achieve that end but we should take no steps whatsoever which might even remotely result in harming the men whose generations before them have depended upon this industry and upon fishing for their living. We are faced again with the eternal question of the difference between the price that is paid to the man who risks his life fishing and the price that is asked of the Dublin housewife, the Cork or Galway housewife, or the housewife in any town or village throughout the country who buys fish. We can lay the blame and the responsibility at the door of what is euphemistically called private enterprise, which is very often a good cover-up for highway robbery.

Catches have been landed at Howth and brought to the Dublin markets, and we have seen the men who have worked hard to get this harvest paid next to nothing for their catches. Fishermen have gone into Dublin shops to buy the fish for which they were so scandalously paid, and were unable to purchase it. Thereby hangs the tale of private enterprise. If that problem is to be solved, it can only be solved by control of prices from the time the fish is landed at the quay until it passes over the counter. Guaranteed and fixed prices should be and must be set down by this board, and there should be heavy penalties imposed in any case where the regulations relating to such prices are contravened.

On the other hand, if the question of price fixing is left to the old survival of the fittest idea of competition, whoever may benefit by it there is one thing certain that the primary producer, the fisherman, will not benefit by it. As in agriculture, the man whose sweat and blood produces the goods to keep this nation alive gets the least possible money for his efforts. The interests that do the least simply take the goods from him, and hand them across the counter and get the highest possible penny for them. That which applies to agriculture now applies to the fishing industry, and will continue to apply unless the Parliamentary Secretary and the board which it is proposed to set up under this Bill decide to put an end to that condition of affairs.

I should like also to refer to the situation which exists in relation to boats which sail from ports within the jurisdiction of the Republic, and sometimes put into Northern Ireland ports. What is the position in regard to the exclusion of our boats from Northern Ireland ports? Why are our boats being excluded from these ports? Anybody can go along at any time during the fishing season, when it is at its height, and have a look at Northern Ireland boats lying in Howth Harbour, where they get a céad míle fáilte, and where they are regarded as being entitled to come.

Sometimes, if you look a bit closer, you might see the set-square and the compass on the wheel-houses of those boats, but nobody minds them, because their crews are fellow-Irishmen of ours. But when our boats put into Kilkeel or some such port in the North, their crews are not allowed to land their catches. That is something that should be taken up by the Parliamentary Secretary and by this new board. English boats, manned by Grimsby men, which happen to land their catches at Irish ports, do so without any interference, but if, by chance, a Howth or Balbriggan boat is forced to land a catch at a Scottish or English port, it has got to pay a 10 per cent. tax. These are things which might seem trivial to some people, but they are of very considerable importance to the fishermen who carry out the job.

I hope that this new board will give consideration to fishermen in respect of the amount of deposit which is being asked in connection with the purchase of new boats. While 10 per cent. of the total amount of money required to purchase a boat may seem to be a small amount when thought of in percentages, it should be realised and remembered that fishermen find it very hard to come by sums as great as £500, £600 or £700—and sometimes they are asked to pay as high as £1,000. In that connection it is of interest to note that a boat is lying at Killybegs and is not in commission. Why? It is not because no purchaser can be found for it. It is because the man to whom it was allocated is unable to put down a sufficient deposit.

Mr. O'Donnell

I do not think that is quite right. There are other prospective purchasers who would be very anxious to get it, but the fact is that it has been allocated to somebody. It is the system that is wrong. If the person to whom it is allocated cannot pay for it, then it should be allocated to somebody else.

Mr. Dunne

The man for whom it was built must have been considered by the Sea Fisheries Association as being entitled to a boat. I do not know who the man in question is, but my information is that a boat is lying at Killybegs and that it is not in commission. If the reason why that boat is lying there is, as I am informed, that the man for whom it was built is unable to put down a sufficiently large deposit, surely that indicates that the whole condition of the fishing industry at present is bad and that consideration should be given, in such cases, to a reduction of the deposit that is demanded?

Mr. O'Donnell

Hear, hear!

Mr. Dunne

I consider that the importation of fish should not be permitted except to supplement the requirements of the home market when our native fishermen are not able to fulfil these requirements. There has been a lot of talk about the potentialities of the home market. I trust that every effort will be made to exploit to the utmost limit the potentialities of the home market but I think that we should not be over-optimistic. As a nation, we are not too fond of fish—one of the reasons being, probably, that in many areas the people seldom or ever get an opportunity to consume fish. A publicity campaign should be initiated by this board to popularise the consumption of fish by our people and steps should also be taken to ensure that the distribution of fish will be on the widest possible basis. In that connection I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is already in existence practically a ready-made organisation for fish distribution. We have something like 174 creamery branches and about 460 auxiliary creamery branches. Extending, as that organisation does, into the most remote rural areas where fish is never seen, does it not occur to the Parliamentary Secretary, as it should to the new board, that arrangements should be made to avail of the cooperation of that organisation for the purpose of ensuring that fish is distributed throughout the whole country?

I am very anxious about, and interested in, the fishing industry, and I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is as anxious as anybody else that the industry should improve. Unless a good start is made it will not improve—and the start must be made by constituting the board which will control the industry in a proper manner. I have suggested how that can be done and I hope it will be done in that fashion. I ask that the question of deep sea fishing be kept in the background until the welfare and future of our inshore fishermen is made secure beyond all question. I am very doubtful that we can make secure the economic future of our inshore fishermen if we go too much now into the question of deep sea trawling.

I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act it will prove more successful than the Sea Fisheries Association proved. I realise that a lot of good work was done by that association but, somehow or other, fishermen as a body never seemed to have confidence in it. That was an unhealthy condition and a change was needed. I sincerely trust that this Bill will mean a change for the better.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have taken the trouble of reading the Debates on the Estimate for the Department of Fisheries, which is a branch of the Department of Agriculture, for the past seven years and I have listened to, or read, the speeches made on this Bill by Deputies on both sides of the House during the past two weeks. Everything that has been said on this Bill has been said over and over again on those Estimates during the past seven years. As a result of the speeches made over the period of the past seven years, we should now ask ourselves whether we have improved the fishing industry of this country. Undoubtedly we have fewer fishermen to-day than we had seven years ago. Less fish is being landed in this country now than seven years ago and less fish is consumed by the people of this country now than seven years ago. I think it is time, therefore, that we carried out some stocktaking. I do not propose to go over the ground covered by the Deputies who have already spoken. I do not believe in repetition. I believe that each and every one of them who spoke from either side of the House was most sincere in what he said.

The first matter to which we must attend is the matter of our fishing grounds. We must see if we are looking after the fishing grounds and protecting them as they should be protected. In my opinion we have a glorious and a golden opportunity of doing that now. Quite recently one of the Norse countries decided to bring before the International Court of The Hague the question of its territorial waters. As a result of the decision reached, the three-mile limit no longer applies and we may if we wish, to-morrow, following the decision of The Hague Court, extend our territorial waters.

I think that is the first thing we should do—extend our territorial waters and then, having done so, protect them, but, goodness knows, if we cannot protect the three-mile limit, I do not see how we can protect a ten-mile limit. We shall have to tackle that job seriously or else give the whole thing up altogether. I think that to protect our territorial waters better use could be made of our naval services and our air force. We are all agreed, I think, that our naval forces at the moment are merely engaged in what might be termed periodic man-oeuvres or visits to foreign ports, with an occasional tour of our own ports. These vessels should be used as fishery patrols and our air force should be utilised to assist them. By doing that, you will make it expensive for foreign poachers to come within our territorial waters to snatch what should be the livelihood of our fishermen from them. That is object No. 1.

No. 2 is the training of our fishermen. We must encourage the people to go back to the old vocation of fishing. Living as I do in a maritime county, I know that we have fewer and fewer fishermen year after year and if the present tendency continues we shall have no fishermen left in Donegal in five years' time. I understand from Deputies from all sides of the House that the same thing applies along the western seaboard. It does not apply so much on the eastern coast but on the western and southern seaboard, unless we improve matters, we shall have no fishermen left after the lapse of the next five years. We must get down to the fact that it is necessary to encourage men to go back to the old avocation of fishing and we must see that the remuneration which they receive as a result of becoming fishermen is sufficient to maintain them in comfort in their avocation. I was rather surprised to hear my colleague, Deputy Cunningham, suggest by way of interjection that part-time fishermen should be done away with I believe that the farmer fishermen of Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Kerry and Cork are the backbone of the fishing industry in this country. If we do away with part-time fishermen, we are going to do away with fishing on the west coast of Ireland and that would be a very serious matter indeed.

One of the things which, in my opinion, has contributed to the lack of interest in fishing by part-time fishermen on the western seaboard is the fact that they are deprived of unemployment assistance during the periods in which they are not fishing. I shall give the House an example of that. Supposing a man is engaged in herring fishing and is fortunate enough to earn £100 for a six or eight-week period of herring fishing. He usually has to provide one or two nets which cost £15 to £17 each. The investigating officer, when assessing that man's means, assesses that £100 as profit, which he alleges has been made, against the man's means. He is automatically disqualified from drawing unemployment assistance on account of that £100 which he earned as a fisherman.

Then take his neighbour, a migratory labourer, who goes across to Scotland for six or eight months of the year and during his period over there possibly earns £150 to £200. He brings that money back and probably deposits it in the bank. That is recognised as earned income and is not assessed against the means of that migratory labourer, whereas the unfortunate fisherman who remains in the country and engages in fishing salmon or herring has his earnings assessed for unemployment assistance purposes. That is to say, he is prevented from drawing this assistance, with the result that he is not encouraged to engage in fishing in the following season or, if he does, he is encouraged to refrain from disclosing his earnings. I have personal experience of these facts because I speak as a former chairman of a court of referees whose duty it was to assess, as fairly as we possibly could within the meaning of the Act, the means of these unfortunate fishermen. I say the first duty of the Parliamentary Secretary should be to take that matter up with the Minister for Social Welfare and, if necessary, have the Unemployment Assistance Acts amended to enable these unfortunate fishermen to draw unemployment assistance during the lacuna in the fishing industry. If we do that we shall encourage these men and their sons to fish and possibly we may increase the number of fishermen along our coasts.

The next important matter we have to consider is the distribution of our fish. I do not mean distribution in the sense that as fish are landed they should be distributed. There is no use in distributing all the fish to the inland towns of Ireland on the day they are landed but to develop the market for fish, we must ensure a continuity of supply. If we want the inland towns of Ireland to take fish on a Friday we must ensure that they are going to get fish every Friday. To achieve that, the first essential is to provide cold storage. If we can provide adequate cold storage in this country to store sufficient fish to supply the country, say for a period of three weeks, then we can ensure continuity of supply for the entire season to the entire populace of the State. There would then be no necessity whatever to import any salt, smoked or fresh fish. In addition to procuring storage, we must also ensure the proper distribution of fish all over the country. Just as much as it is the duty of the Sea Fisheries Association or the new board to provide boats and gear for the fishermen, it will equally be their duty to provide frigidaire vans for the distribution of fish in the inland towns in the country.

This is a Bill which it is most difficult to criticise. The objects of the Bill, in my opinion, are very good. They are, first, to ensure imporved outlets, with particular reference to the home market, for landings made by the inshore fishermen. That is a very good object. We are not told how we are going to go about it, unless we adopt the methods which I have suggested. Another object is to introduce by the establishment of a new board, a system of closer supervision and control of sea fishing operations, with greater attention to the needs of the industry at both the production and marketing ends, than had been practicable under the set-up of the Irish Sea Fisheries Association, Limited. This Bill sets up two associations. It establishes, first of all, a board and then it sets up an advisory body to advise that board. I have no complaint whatever to make as to the constitution of that advisory body.

It consists of representatives of all that is good in the fishing industry: four representatives of the sea fishermen, two representatives of the retail fish trade and two representatives of the distributive fish trade.

That, in my opinion, is a proper constitution of the association, but, unfortunately, we are not told what is the constitution of the board. All we are told is that the Minister has power to set up a board which shall consist of six members, one of whom shall be chairman. The Minister is the person who will nominate the personnel of that board. I think it is essential that we should be told who is going to constitute the board. Is it the representatives of the fishermen, representatives of the retail trade and representatives of the distributive fish trade? What I have to say now about the present Sea Fisheries Association has nothing whatever to do with its personnel. I have been in touch with the civil servants attached to the Sea Fisheries Association and with the civil servants attached to the Department of Fisheries, and I have received nothing from them but courtesy and help. If I attack them, I am not attacking them individually, but I believe that no matter what responsibility the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, may take upon himself he is being ruled, and has been ruled, by what may be described as the official view of the civil servant in the Department of Fisheries or in the Irish Sea Fisheries Association.

Let us put this to ourselves: why should we ask a civil servant, who has no experience whatever of fishing or of dealing in fish or of the wholesale or retail fish trade to become chairman of this board? Is it fair to him? I do not think it is. He is an excellent, a first-class civil servant, a gentleman who will do what he is told to do, but why leave the initiative to him, why leave it to him to make or break himself? Surely to goodness, we are all human, we are prepared to take the line of least resistance and let things drift. I think it is very unfair to civil servants to ask them to become members of this board. I would like to see the Parliamentary Secretary take a bold stand in this matter. I would like to see a practical seaman appointed chairman of the board and all the branches of sea fishing represented on it.

I think that if the Parliamentary Secretary advises the Minister to do that, he will be going a long way towards improving the fishing industry in this country. We are all agreed that thousands and thousands of pounds were squandered by the old Sea Fisheries Association in building boats of 32 and 35 feet. They are lying rotten on the coasts of Donegal, Galway, Mayo and Cork, boats which were never used except for long line or herring fishing during the herring fishing season. We all know these boats lost thousands of pounds to the old Sea Fisheries Association, and that it took the association practically 20 years to realise that a boat of 38, 55 and 60 feet is the ideal boat for our coast. Think of the sums of public money that have been squandered in the meantime, and of all the good work that could have been done if practical fishermen and of men of experience associated with the trade, had been in charge, instead of what I may again describe as excellent civil servants, who, in my opinion, lacked initiative in so far as the direction of the Sea Fisheries Association was concerned.

If we are going to encourage our fishermen to continue fishing, the first thing we must do is to subsidise the gear and the other materials used by them in fishing. I had a case last December of a man who purchased four nets, which cost him £16 10s., unmounted. On his first night at sea he lost his entire train of nets. He was a poor man. He applied to the Sea Fisheries Association for replacement, but he could not get it, because he was not a member of the association. I question very much whether, even if he were a member, he would have got it, for the simple reason that he probably had not paid an old debt. I would like to see the nets and gear subsidised. If that could be done, then we would be doing a lot of good for the fishermen of the country.

There are a number of matters arising on sections of the Bill which I propose to raise when we reach the Committee Stage. There is, however, one matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. It arises on Section 36. Under that section, men who are going to sell fish are required to take out a licence. Under the Auctioneers Act, which was passed, I think, in 1947, any person who becomes an auctioneer must satisfy the court as to the requirements contained in Section 32 (1) of this Bill. To obtain an ordinary auctioneer's licence he must pay a premium on a bond to an insurance company, which amounts to £10 or £12. He must also pay £10 in stamp duty on the licence, and he must employ a solicitor to make the application to the District Court for such licence. Surely he is one of the gentlemen who should be exempt from the provisions of this section in the Bill. If a district justice has already inquired into his character and granted him a licence, it should not be necessary for him to go back and satisfy the Minister that a licence is again necessary for him. I propose asking the Minister on the Committee Stage to accept an amendment which would exclude people who already hold a licence under the Auctioneers Act of 1947 from the provision in this section. That, in my opinion, would be a fit and proper amendment to the section.

Now, there is another matter which I think is really obnoxious. It is paragraph (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 15, whereby the board is empowered to purchase, store or sell fuel and lubricating and other oils for use in the running of sea fishing boats. We have had sea fishing boats in this country since away back in 1920. Certain people have gone to the trouble of establishing the business of providing these sea fishing boats with fuel and lubricating oils, particularly off the islands on our coasts. Under this paragraph their business is going to be wiped out overnight by this board, which is setting up a business in opposition to them. These men have put capital and years of work into the trade of catering for the sea fishing boats of the country. I think that the proposal in this section is obnoxious.

I would ask the Minister seriously to consider, on the Committee Stage, the wiping out of that particular paragraph. I would also ask him seriously to consider a limitation of the keel length of the boats which may fish off our coasts. One can visualise again private enterprise, or otherwise, chartering trawlers and glutting the Dublin market. I think that a maximum length of a boat should be 70 feet. I am sure that if the Minister consults with the officials who advise him in the drafting of Bills he may find a very good reason for a limitation of the keel length of boats to, say, 70 feet. I think that this Bill would be acceptable were we informed on the point and received a reply to the question we are asking now and the question that we asked on the Foyle Fisheries Bill: Who will constitute this board? I can assure the Minister that were I aware of the personnel and aware of the fact that the proposed board would not be dominated by civil servants I would be the first to endorse this measure and give my approval to the Bill as it stands.

Captain Giles

I know very little about the fishing industry because I come from an inland area, but for the past 30 years I have been listening to talk about the fishing industry and I have seen very little result. I even heard Arthur Griffith talk about the fishing industry. I heard Fionán Lynch talk about it; I heard him say, almost 30 years ago, that it was one of our most important industries. I heard the last Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, say that he was bringing in a Bill to put the industry on its feet. Now we have another Bill to put the industry on its feet. I think the whole thing is a cod.

Why has the fishing industry not been developed? I believe that what is really needed is proper organisation. Our people are not fish-minded but they can be made fish-minded. We in the Midlands want fish. We would like to have it at least twice a week. What are the facts? Perhaps once in three, four or five months an old hawker arrives with a load of stale herrings— a dirty man with a dirty van and dirty hands and stinking fish. He goes from house to house expecting the people to buy that fish. Unfortunately, because they see fish so seldom, some of them buy it, but it is generally the first and the last time they do buy it.

I want to see proper organisation behind this industry. The seas around our coast abound in fish. Fish are brought into our ports by our fishermen, but there is no proper organisation to send that fish into the Midland areas. When there is a glut, the fishermen find themselves with a rotten mess left on their hands. I want a publicity campaign, first and foremost, to make our people fish-minded. I want properly equipped fish depots all over the country. If that is done, we will put the industry on its feet in a very short time.

Heretofore we have never had that drive. All we hear is that the fishermen want more money, their nets are lost, their boats are rotten. We are sick listening to that. We want good clean fish as cheap as we can get it. We want a variety of fish. I am satisfied the people will eat fish if they get the right kind of fish. Now we get nothing but the tail-end of the Dublin fish market, the leavings. That is hawked around the country by the small fish vendor and that is what is dished up to us.

How could the fishing industry possibly develop on those lines? We must have cleanliness. We must have proper organisation. We must have central depots and co-ordination. If those things are not present, then it is no use talking about the fishing industry. We see very little fish in the country except for the old stale herring. Before Bills are introduced, steps should be taken to establish a proper organisation. There should be a drive, accompanied by a publicity campaign, to make the people fish-minded. No fish should be sold unless it is good, clean fish, and in abundant variety. The fish vendors should have clean vans, clean hands and wear white coats, so that the people who purchase their goods will know that they are getting a commodity that can be eaten. The people will eat fish if we only make an effort here to give them the kind of fish they want. I say, stop all this legislation year after year. Act after Act is passed, and nothing ever happens. A new Government comes in, and we have the tedious business all over again. We have had 30 years of that. God knows, it is enough. Give us good fish. Give us clean fish as often as you can give it to us. That is all we want.

Mr. Kyne

I would like to remind Deputy Giles of the old saying that you must first catch your hare. We must catch the fish before we can distribute it around the country. There is something more to the fishing industry than just eating fish. Naturally, any attempt to improve the industry must be of paramount interest in this island country. There is around our shores a potential source of wealth that other maritime countries have exploited to their hearts' content.

It is a very poor record that we have made so little use of the riches in the waters round our coast. I think, however, that there has been a gradual improvement in the fishing industry during the past 15 or 16 years. Much of the credit for that must go to the Sea Fisheries Association, though it is also due in some measure to the improvement in the catch resulting from improved methods of fishing. Whatever the improvement is due to it is yet clear to all that we are not making even 50 per cent. of the advance that we should make in sea fishing.

The fact that we have now a Parliamentary Secretary in charge of fisheries is to me a welcome sign of the interest taken in fishing. I think that appointment is a good one. I think it is an appointment that should have been made long years ago. Fisheries, while under the control of the Department of Agriculture, became the Cinderella of the Service. Very little attention was paid to the industry. Its importance was overlooked. Fishing was neglected and those who hitherto engaged in it were compelled to emigrate in order to find a livelihood elsewhere.

Fortunately, we have fishermen left capable of carrying on that highly skilled work provided they get the necessary financial help and encouragement. It is well known that in our fishing centres, and mainly in the Gaeltacht, money is not plentiful and those who would engage in fishing are not in a position to put down the additional payments required to replace boats and gear, worn out or lost in the storms that come each year.

As Deputy O'Donnell pointed out, the type of boat provided has been a source of loss both to the association and to the fisherman themselves. It is now admitted that these boats are incapable of travelling to the grounds where the fish can be found. In my constituency a number of Scotch fishing boats have been engaged during the past two or three years. As compared with the boats of the local fishermen, these boats can be termed luxury craft. They are equipped with every modern device, including a radio-telephone by which they keep in constant touch, not only with one another, but with the markets so that they can be directed and redirected if necessary to the ports where there is the biggest demand for fish and where they will get the highest prices. They are equipped with radar by which they can find their fishing grounds even on foggy nights. They have an echo-sounding apparatus which enables them to locate the shoals of fish.

These boats are in competition with our fishermen who, very often, have a boat which has not even an engine or, if it has an engine, it is one of a very inferior type. I welcome the provision in the Bill under which that sort of competition will not be allowed to continue. These fishermen have been of advantage to us in so far as they have indicated to us what modern science can do to help us and the best system for the use of modern equipment. They have introduced a new system of ring net fishing as compared with the old style used by Irish fishermen and I understand that since that system was adopted by the Irish fishermen it has paid big dividends. The time has come when this competition from outside sources must stop and the new board should try to model their new boats on the boats used by these Scotsmen. They should endeavour to provide the new boats with similar equipment so that our fishermen may have all the advantages that these Scotsmen have.

I agree that there is a need for a combination of offshore and inshore fishing because of the necessity for a steady supply of fish for the home market. It is desirable that a certain amount of offshore fishing should be indulged in during periods when inshore fishing is not possible. We can get a guaranteed market for fish amongst the rural community because I believe that it is amongst the rural community that a market can be built up.

On the question of inducing our people to eat fish, the board should go in for a good deal of propaganda. The radio, newspapers, magazines and the films should be used in this propaganda drive. We have been told that fish is the best food for the brain. That has very often induced people to make a choice of fish for their meals. I suggest that there should be a publication of the vitamin content of different types of fish and also a stressing, where it can be shown, of the saving that can be made by buying fish as compared with other foods. In that way the rural community can be induced to use more fish than they have done in the past.

If we are to induce the people in the rural districts to use fish we must first get the fish from the ports to these districts. It is well known that in practically every country town the only fish available is dried lander, red herrings, or something of that sort. On an occasional Friday you may get iced cod or whiting, slightly gone off, which arrives from Dublin. I live in a seaport town within five miles of some of the best fishing grounds in the world and I have seen more Fridays on which fish was not available than Fridays on which it was available. Therefore there must be something wrong with the method of distribution of fish.

The extension of rural electrification provides an opportunity for establishing centres where fish can be kept in a fresh state in a much better way than has been possible in the past. There should be an extension of the frigidaire system in the co-operative stores throughout the country. If that were linked up with a fleet of lorries from the ports at which the fish is landed we could assure the rural community of a supply of fresh fish, not the rotten fish described by Deputy Giles but a food that would be suitable for any people. If the rural community could get such fish I am satisfied that they would use it and be anxious to get it.

I agree with Deputy O'Donnell that the fact that unemployment benefit and national health insurance do not extend to the fisherman is something of which this country cannot be proud. On a wet day, a builder's labourer who, because of that act of God, is unable to earn his bread, receives under the heading of wet time some compensation for the fact that during that time he was unable to earn his living. A fisherman deprived of his employment because a storm rages around our coasts or because of some other act of God, is expected to suffer on and to remain unemployed until such time as the storm abates. He receives no compensation of any sort for his loss of time. Is it any wonder that people will not be over-eager to engage in the fishing industry except as part-time employment?

There is a question on which I am not quite clear and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with it when replying, that is, as to whether we have any ships carrying out research work into the merits and habits of the fish and the best methods of catching them. In reading an agricultural report of the year 1902 I noticed that the then Helga was so equipped, and made, I understand, reports to the Department of Agriculture at specified times. In these reports were indicated all the changes of habits of the fish; maps were prepared by the officials or officers in charge of that boat, indicating the particular waters where fish appeared and the approximate dates; particular fishing grounds were laid out and any alterations noted. It would be well, if we have not that service continued, that it be re-established.

I agree with Deputy O'Donnell that the composition of the new board is vitally important to the success of this Bill. Unless men of practical seagoing experience or experienced in the marketing and handling of fish are chosen, it will be very little use expecting that the industry can flourish. We wish, I am sure, the Parliamentary Secretary success with any attempt to improve the industry but we trust that the importance of the industry and its success will come before any political expediency in the formation of the board.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I rise to add my brief comment on this Bill but I do so between two minds, wondering whether I should welcome it or otherwise. Under this Bill it is intended to end the activities of the Sea Fisheries Association, an organisation which has during its time done very valuable work within the limits in which it was permitted to operate. As one who has had some very considerable association with and experience of the life of the fishermen, I consider that this Bill will not go far enough to achieve the objects which I had hoped it would. Looking through the Bill, I find that the amount of £500,000 is to be made available. In my opinion, it should be at least £3,000,000 spread over a period of five years, which would make it £600,000 a year. If we are going to improve the sea fishery business and make it what it ought to be, the most important industry next to agriculture, I am very much afraid that this Bill will not achieve that object.

I notice that there are four centres to be set up which, I take it, will operate within and be controlled within these centres. I do suggest seriously to the Parliamentary Secretary that unless steps are taken to establish at least four curing stations around the coasts, we will not be able to make the success of this Bill for the fishing industry which we would all like so much to see.

As I said, I have some experience of the fisherman's life. I experienced it with him on a few occasions perforce, on hard cold winter nights; that was in the days when they used their muscles for power, not an engine in a boat. I believe it is only right that some endeavour should be made to supply each and every crew in all our fishing villages who are able to man a boat with such boats which they can call their own. I can see very little hope of the potential crews of the future in our fishing villages being able to put down 10 per cent. of the cost of a boat plus 10 per cent. deducted from the earnings. That, to my mind, is rather drastic and if we want to help the young men, the sons of the fishermen and the families of the fishermen of the future, some provision ought to be made whereby solvent sureties should be accepted in order to encourage those young fishermen to provide for their future and to supply the Irish market with fresh fish.

I have a distinct recollection of the period when the Sea Fisheries Association was set up, when we were told that there were to be fleets of fast vans which would carry the catch when landed on the quays of our fishing villages to the inland towns throughout the State. That never materialised. If it is envisaged now I hope it will not be allowed to slip as it did in the past. It goes without saying that the people of this country have become fish unconscious. I remember in my younger days seeing fleets of vans laden with fish going off to the various inland towns in my district. I am sure that that was so in and around the coasts, north, south, east and west. We have at the present time a few who use the modern motor vehicle but they are very few. If we had more fish landed, there would be a greater sale for fish; the only way to have more fish landed and supplied to the Irish market is to accommodate fishermen with boats, and I would suggest very modern ones at that. I understand that in the English and Scottish fishing fleets there are boats equipped with radar enabling them to detect where the shoals of fish lie. If this Government intends to sponsor a fishing fleet, they should see to it that it will be the most modern that plies on the seas.

I suggest seriously to the Parliamentary Secretary that at least four modern up-to-date curing stations should be erected around our coastline. Those four divisions, I suggest, are the most likely centres for the setting up of modern curing fishing stations. If their erection should come to pass there will always be a ready market for what the fishing fleets have to offer. This struck me very forcibly not later than 2 o'clock yesterday evening when there were nine fishing trawlers lying off the port of Skerries waiting for the tide so that they could enter. I could see that at least nine of them seemed to be loaded. On occasions like that it would not be possible to deal with the vast shoal of fish landed in that manner or to supply the market on a Wednesday, even in Lent. For that reason I suggest that, in order to deal with surplus supplies of fish, there should be some means of dispatching them from the various fishing villages to the packing centres. If other countries can secure tin for canning, there is no reason in the world why this committee should not be able to get their share of tin for that purpose. If we can even adopt these few suggestions I feel, at all events, that something good will come from this particular Bill. In my opinion, we are simply replacing the Sea Fisheries Association unless we go out in a big way to achieve something substantial and beneficial for the fishing industry in this country.

Mr. Desmond

As the Parliamentary Secretary said in his address, inland fisheries have reached the end of a stage in their development. In this House this evening and all through this debate members coming from the north, the south, the east and the west coastal areas of the Twenty-Six Counties were all interested in the question of the fishing industry and its vital importance both to the fishermen and to the country as a whole. As many speakers have already said, we are practically as far away to-day from making the fishing industry the success it ought to be as we were in the early years of the foundation of this State. I agree with the other speakers that, at any rate, the Sea Fisheries Association did some good. In 1931, when this organisation was formed, the fishing industry was, unfortunately, in very bad shape.

In the intervening years, though the progress has not been anything like what we would have wished it to be, taking 1938 as against 1945, figures can prove that the co-operation given to the fishermen and others through the Sea Fisheries Association did at least justify its existence.

Perhaps one of the greatest handicaps with which the Sea Fisheries Association had to deal was the fact that, from the beginning, the fishing industry was never looked upon by the members of this House as the important industry it, in fact, is. Some Deputies, during the course of the debates here during the last few days, complained about the few members who were present to hear the discussion on the fishing industry. I noticed that those who lodged the complaint did not come from the seaboard areas. Undoubtedly, there is a tendency for people to speak on subjects on which they have a particular interest. I suppose it is only human, when one realises that the same remarks are being made in this House year after year, the same plans and suggestions brought forward, and very little interest taken in them, that one would come to the stage of saying: "It is a waste of time to even contribute towards such a debate." For the last 25 or 30 years there have been members in this House who offered contributions which some of us younger Deputies would profit by reading. I am sure such contributions were well worth listening to. Unfortunately, the fact that fisheries are considered only as a section of another Department has from the outset been the biggest weakness of the whole industry.

I am sorry that the present Parliamentary Secretary is not a Minister for Fisheries. However, it is a step in the right direction to have a Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries. When reading through this Bill reference is continually made to "the Minister," and yet we know very well that the Minister concerned has another industry in his charge—agriculture. I believe that, until we go so far as to have a Minister for Fisheries with a Department for Fisheries under his control, we will not be making a genuine attempt towards making the fishing industry the important one it ought to be, and the important industry we wish it to be.

Another important point is the fact that, while there may be a Minister for Fisheries in the future, there will always be the overriding individual, namely, the Minister for Finance.

The Minister for Finance is all right in his own place, but I feel that we should keep him out of the fishing industry as far as possible. We will have to admit that very little money has been allocated to that industry in the past and that the industry has made very little progress. We must be prepared to spend a large sum in seeing that the inshore fishermen—the backbone of the industry even at the present time—are well provided for and well protected. Our future plans for deep sea fishing must also be put on a proper plane, through the provision of adequate finance at the outset, so as to make it the success we wish it to be. As the Parliamentary Secretary stated, the catches landed in this country from 1938 to 1945 were very satisfactory.

Debate adjourned.