Before Deputy Desmond resumes, may I say that a difficulty arises under this Bill? The time for amendments has been provisionally fixed for to-night, but the Second Stage has not yet been completed, and I wonder if it would be possible to have the time for amendments extended at least to Monday night?
Committee on Finance. - Sea Fisheries Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I think so.
When speaking last night on the activities of the Sea Fisheries Association, I said that if we took the landings for the year 1945, as compared with 1938, it was, to a certain degree, at least, satisfactory to know that they had greatly improved. One point of importance that must be mentioned is that, in 1945, we exported roughly 40,000 cwt. of white fish. Even up to 1949 conditions were fairly satisfactory, but thereon we saw a falling back. In connection with the export of 40,000 cwt. of white fish in 1945, it must be admitted that, even during that period, the home market was not supplied to any degree of satisfaction. While we did export fish, we still seem to have made no proper attempt to put fish on the home market for the home consumer. The policy of that time showed quite clearly that, while we may have realised the enormous advantages to be gained from the home market, we never went far enough to capture that market which awaited us here in our own country.
When we consider that from 1949 onwards conditions again altered to the disadvantage of the inshore fishermen it is quite obvious that the reason was the resumption of fishing by foreign fleets. When these fishermen from continental countries, as well as from England, can come to fish around our coasts, even outside the three-mile limit, surely we should be willing and determined to provide facilities for our fishermen, not just to fish near the shore but to go out and beat the foreigners at their own game. Coming from the Cork coastal area, I believe that, with the best intentions in the world, the system of patrol which now operates could not successfully counteract the results of fishing by foreign trawlers. Undoubtedly the proper remedy is to give our fishermen boats and gear of sufficient quantity and quality to enable them to go out. Instead of sending out corvettes to chase the foreigners away we should enable our fishermen to face up to the competition of these foreign trawlers by fishing outside the limit with proper equipment and boats. If we are prepared to allow inshore fishing to remain in the same condition in the future as it has been in in the past, then I believe that neither this nor any other Bill will ever provide for us the important industry which all of us, or at any rate the Deputies from the seaboard areas, are anxious and determined to see in this country.
Many members have spoken on these matters and perhaps it is true that repetition is wearing, but at any rate it is satisfactory to those of us who speak to know that there is no fundamental difference between the members who come from those areas, no matter to what Party they belong. Each member of each Party seems to realise the weakness in the present system. It is an advantage to the House for other members to understand that these members are anxious to put the industry on a solid basis by working up from the foundation. If we are to do that I believe that this new board must take into consideration the advantages which may have accrued from the setting up of the original Sea Fisheries Association; also, which is of vital importance, the mistakes made before the setting up of that board and from 1931 onwards.
There is no use in attacking either the officials or the Minister for Agriculture, who is directly responsible for this Department. Rather should we try to put our finger on the points of greatest weakness in this industry. That is why, like other Deputies, I am principally interested in the question of this new Fisheries Board. Unfortunately we have no idea, as yet, of the personnel of this board. If the members to be appointed to this board are not to have direct contact with fishermen along the western, northwestern, south-western and south coast, and unless they have considerable experience of the fishing industry, in my opinion it is waste of time setting up this new board. One advantage of the scheme which operated in the past was that fishermen had direct contact, many of them through their membership of the Sea Fisheries Association, with the directorate of the board. It may be said that a committee is being set up under this Bill which will give them direct contact again. In that connection, I can see a further weakness in so far as the committee, which will consist of representatives of the fishermen and the trade, will be in a position only to make recommendations and suggestions to the new board. It is quite clear that if any question of importance comes before the board as a recommendation from this committee, a recommendation from men who have actual experience of the fishing industry, if the members of the board do not look with favour on these recommendations, it will be futile for the committee to make such recommendations. Therefore the most important factor in the Bill is the question of the personnel of the new board which is to be appointed.
Some Deputies have suggested, I believe without any bitterness in their minds, that political considerations might enter into the question of the appointment of members of the board. I am not going to accuse either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, who is responsible for piloting this Bill through the Oireachtas, of such intentions but it is quite obvious to all of us that when members of the board are being selected solely by the Minister, whilst experience and other qualifications have to be considered, there is a natural tendency, from the viewpoint of human relationship, to select someone who, although he may not be a direct supporter of the Minister, will hold views somewhat in line with those which have been expressed by the Minister on this industry. That means that only the policy of the Minister will be put into effect, not a policy directly initiated by the board itself.
This board is given responsibilities under this Bill, additional to those which were given to the Sea Fisheries Association. It is mentioned, for instance, that the board may itself concentrate on deep-sea fishing to supplement supplies on the home market. They are also to have the functions of controlling landings and sales. A point of importance is that all sales must be conducted through the board itself, as in the past through the Sea Fisheries Association Deputies have complained, I think with some justification, that in inland areas people see fish only on very rare occasions. I believe myself that is true because control of the sale of fish through the association has been a complete failure. Why, for instance, should fish landed by fishermen in Kinsale, Passage, Ballycotton or any other area in the south-west, be sent directly to Dublin? I believe that that has been one of the greatest causes of the lack of success in the attempts to improve fishing in these areas. It is possible for people in Dublin City to get fish when there is none available in the seaport districts to which I have referred. Unless this new board will be prepared to supply, not just the market in the locality where the fish is landed, but also the towns and villages adjacent to it, and unless they see that a proportion at any rate of the fish landed is allocated to these areas, it just means that we are again merely going to provide sufficient fish for the people in Dublin, which seems to be all that is of importance in this country.
In the past it was quite a common thing to see in various homes in the rural areas a certain amount of salt or cured fish. Even with the improved facilities now available, and the advantages to be derived from the instruction obtained in cookery classes in the vocational schools, I believe that, in future, the type of fish that will be bought by housewives in the heart of the country will be salt and cured fish. Will this board make a sufficiently earnest endeavour to see that salt and cured fish is made available on the inland market? We know that for the transport of fresh fish it is necessary to provide a proper system of preserving the fish as well as providing means of transport. If we had in coastal areas a proper method of curing fish, we should not have to wait until we acquired the extra machinery that may be needed in these areas for the preservation of fish in a fresh state. At the same time, we would be putting at the disposal of people in inland towns and villages an improved supply of fish. That is what they are crying out for. I believe, however, that this board will meet with anything but success if they again determine that every fish landed around the coast must be sent to Dublin. It is poor satisfaction for us down the country to know that the fish must, first of all, be sent to Dublin. Then, when the Dublin market is supplied, they will send some of the fish back to Cork City. It is poor comfort for us to know in Cork City that when they had to import fish from England some of it had, in the first instance, been landed off the coast of Cork. I believe that we must be prepared, first of all, to consider the requirements of the rural areas to a greater degree than we have been doing and to give them a larger proportion of the landed fish than we have been doing in the past.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that one of the functions of the new board would be the supply of the home market and, ultimately, the supply of an export market. I believe that if we could supply the home market to a much greater degree than we are doing at present, we certainly would be making a fairly good job of it. If we were prepared to forget the question of exports for the moment, and were determined to see that the home market was supplied, and if this new board were to apply itself to the processing and canning of fish, we could utilise all the catches of fish that come off our shores, and need not bother our heads about exports for years to come. The fact that we could use much more fish in our own country would give us a free hand to export much more in the way of live stock, beef, etc., for which we have a ready market.
When we talk about the export of fish, we must bear in mind that there are in other countries vicious rings dealing with the fishing industry, with the landing and the sale of fish. Deputies may have read recently of the formation of a ring in a country across the water composed of responsible people in the fishing industry. They have declared that the landings of fish there will be just the amount which they are satisfied will give them the enormous profits which they have been demanding from the trade. They also went so far as to make arrangements between themselves that no extra vessels or fishing trawlers would be put out unless there was 100 per cent agreement between the members. You have those rings going to such a degree that they are willing to dump the fish rather than put it on the market for people who badly need it. In view of these circumstances we must realise what a poor chance we have of being able to burst into a market that is completely under the control of such rings and monopolies. Therefore, I suggest that this board should concentrate to the utmost of its power on the home market and on the use of fish as fish meal. I am of the opinion that unless we are prepared to give a greater proportion of the supply to the rural areas, this new board will be just catering for the market that is here in one city, and will be forgetting the rest of the country.
This board is being given power to engage in deep-sea fishing to supplement the home supplies. Right throughout the discussion on this Bill the matter of paramount importance that was raised was the position of the inshore fishermen. We are all interested in them. I know many of them myself. They are a very fine type of men, such as you can see in Kinsale. They are hard, weather-bitten men with their blue ganseys and they are as fine a type of men as can be found in any part of the world. Their mode of living can never be changed, even though we might wish it to be changed, to some other type of occupation. We have been told that we have about 2,000 whole-time fishermen employed at the present time. I doubt that myself. We must differentiate between the fisherman who is solely dependent on fishing for his living as against the other type of man to be found in many villages along our coast—the man who has another occupation and who goes out fishing when it suits him to do so. If we are to govern our actions solely in the interests of the latter type of fisherman we are not going to make a success of this industry. We must be prepared to admit that it is the inshore fisherman—the man solely dependent on fishing for his livelihood—who is the foundation of the industry. If we go outside of him then we are going to weaken our claim to try to improve the industry as a whole.
The inshore fisherman of whom I speak, the man in full-time employment, or at least who hopes for full-time employment, has suffered many disabilities in the past. Deputy O'Donnell fired a direct shot last night when he mentioned the victimisation of the inshore fisherman by reason of the fact that he is denied unemployment assistance. All of us have had such cases brought to our notice. The lives of those men is a miserable one because at times all they can do is to loiter around the town. One of the reasons for that is that their mode of living is so different from any other type of occupation. They have no hope of getting any casual work during periods when the weather does not permit them to go out fishing. They also suffer from the disability that boats, net and rope are now so costly. I believe that we could ease their lot a good deal if we could arrange to give them grants towards the provision and upkeep of nets and rope and, as some Deputies mentioned, give them 10 per cent. to put down when buying a boat. If we could do that it would at least make life a little more easy for them. It would help, too, to contribute in a great degree to the success of the industry.
These men are of more importance to the industry than the members of this new board. It is on them we must depend if we are to make a success of the industry. Therefore, we should do something that would help to safeguard their interests and build up the industry. They have to contend with many difficulties. One is that in many areas no protection is provided for their boats. The boats have to face the rigours of the broad Atlantic. Deputies will have read in the papers that during last winter a number of those poor unfortunate fishermen lost their lives when going out in severe storms to see if their boats were secure. In some cases the boats were damaged beyond repair. There is also the question of providing shelters in the harbours and of improving the harbours for the benefit of the fishermen. County councils are expected to provide such facilities in the smaller harbours at any rate. It is obvious that county councils can never make a success of this job because county councils do not employ marine engineers and it is hardly fair then to expect them to carry out this work. We have been up against that difficulty in West, South and East Cork. For years past we have been waiting for a much-needed survey in connection with our harbours at Schull, Crosshaven, Ballycotton, to mention a few of them.
I think proper co-ordination is necessary between the county councils and the fisheries branch of the Department of Agriculture in order that the present difficulties may be overcome. It is no good passing the buck, the one victim all the time being the unfortunate fishermen. We must put proper facilities at the disposal of the fishermen. If we admit the importance of the fishermen to the industry then we must be prepared to provide him with proper working conditions as soon as possible.
I have mentioned the difficulties in relation to the inshore fishermen. I am fully cognisant of the fact that it is the fishermen who depend solely on fishing as a means of livelihood who must get our first consideration. Would it be possible under this new Bill to have the methods adopted in other countries examined? I understand that in some countries fishermen are employed on a weekly basis and they receive a certain percentage of the profit on the catch above a certain minimum. Under our present code of law we cannot provide an unemployed fisherman with unemployment benefit. If he becomes ill we cannot protect him under the National Health Acts. If he dies all we can offer to his widow is a non-contributory widow's pension. Why should these men be victimised to such an extent? That victimisation may not be intentional, admittedly, but nevertheless it does exist. It is our duty to either alter or amend the regulations in order to provide these men with proper conditions of work and social security.
Direct employment of fishermen seems to have been a success in other countries. Why should the experiment not be tried out here? We have been told that there are roughly 2,000 fishermen employed full-time in that occupation but I believe myself that there is not anything like that number at the present time. If we could offer these men security of tenure and a decent livelihood we might get somewhere.
On the other hand, some fishermen may prefer to purchase their own boats and work as a team on a cooperative basis. It is only right that they should have the opportunity of doing that if they so desire. As has been mentioned by other speakers there are a number of men who cannot afford to continue under present conditions. None of us would like to see these men leaving the country and seeking employment in Grimsby or anywhere else. We want them here at home, but we must be prepared to provide them with a proper system of working and give them the advantage of all the social benefits that other workers enjoy. Their families should not have to be reared in more arduous conditions than other families.
I do not know whether my suggestions will be considered. We all have our own views and I am merely expressing the views of men whom I have known since childhood. They have spent their lives on the sea. I know their sons. They are clamouring to go to sea. Some of them joined our naval forces during the recent recruiting drive. They are proud to claim membership with something appertaining to the sea, and particularly proud of the fact that they are serving in a national capacity.
If we give the fishermen decent conditions of employment and provide them with the proper boats and facilities the response to a call for fishermen would be much greater, I believe, than anyone anticipates. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the points I have raised. There seem to be two diametrically opposed views in regard to this industry. Some claim that the only solution lies in private enterprise. Others claim that its salvation lies in State control. I do not believe either will ever wholly succeed. Private enterprise will never succeed so long as there are part-time fishermen satisfied with a few pounds extra per week and so long as rings and monopolies continue. I think the dangers inherent in private enterprise on its own are many.
In connection with State control of the industry we may have people in Dublin issuing directions and giving commands to the people in our seaports. The people in Dublin, be they civil servants or anything else, will know very little about the industry, while those to whom they issue their commands and directions will know the industry from A to Z. Directions may be issued and instructions given for certain action to be taken which will be to the detriment of the industry rather than to its advantage. Our only hope lies in giving all the facilities we can to the trade as an open trade in order to prevent the building up of monopolies or rings. We must give the fisherman who is the foundation of the whole industry, a decent living in the future.
If we do that, then with full co-operation between inshore and deep sea fishermen—we will have to have deep sea fishermen if we are to provide fish for the needs of our people and of industry—we can establish a successful fishing industry in this country. If we are honest and courageous enough to make a decent attempt to do that, in years to come when other Deputies occupy the benches in this House they will at least be able to say that we in our time were sincere in what we had to say about the fishermen of our country.
It is true to say that there has been, generally, very little enthusiasm for this Bill. Certainly I think the inshore fishermen themselves are not happy about it. I do not think the wholesalers or retailers like it particularly, and there are not many Deputies who have been over-enthusiastic about its introduction. The reason for that is, we are setting up under this Bill a board which the Parliamentary Secretary himself described in the debate on the Bill introduced by the inter-Party Government as a totalitarian board. We are handing over this most important industry, which gives employment to very nearly 10,000 men and which is largely responsible for supplying the home market and exporting whatever fish we do export, to the control of a board to be nominated by the Minister, the members of which are to be removable from office at the will of the Minister and whose remuneration is to be under the control of the Minister.
I do not wish to approach this Bill and the board which it is proposed to set up from any doctrinaire angle. If such a board would be in the interest of the fishing industry, I would welcome it. I do not wish to approach it from the doctrinaire angle of private enterprise or State control. I do not care by what name such a board would be designated. I do not care whether you call it a Fascist or a totalitarian approach to the industry. If the board to be set up and the functions allotted to it would help the fishing industry and the community generally, I would welcome it. However, I feel that the dissatisfaction which many people feel about the setting up of this board is due to the fact that we, in Dáil Éireann, are giving control of a very important industry into the hands of five men. We are giving control of this industry by means of regulations. To all intents and purposes, we are allowing the Minister of the day and his appointees to control the fishing interests of this country.
Enlightened despotism may be the best form of government or philosopher kings may be the best people to govern. I feel, however, that we are dealing with fallible human beings and with fallible Ministers, and I should like to see some means of appointing members to this board other than the method by which they are to be appointed under the Bill. If possible, I should like to see a board set up on some sort of vocational lines. I can see no reason why some, at least, of the members of the board should not be elected in the manner in which the members of the association to be set up by the Bill are to be elected. If we had a system of election to this board, not necessarily of the majority of the members, but some, at least, of them, we would be ensuring that proper personnel would be appointed to it; we would be ensuring that public confidence and the confidence of those who would be electing the members to the board could be obtained.
If the object of this Bill is to aid the inshore fishermen, I would give it my full-hearted approval and I think it would get the approval of every Deputy. There are, however, some significant differences between this Bill and the Bill introduced by Deputy Dillon as a Minister of the last Government. One of the most significant differences is the fact that under Deputy Dillon's Bill only sea fishermen would be entitled to supply fish. It was in fact creating a monopoly position so that sea fishermen only would be entitled to land fish in this country. That has been done away with in the present Bill. We have now a situation in which sea fishermen and licencees will be entitled to land fish.
Then the position is that the giving or withholding of licences under this Bill is solely within the control of the Minister. The Minister may exercise that control in a wise fashion or he may not. He may exercise it so that deep sea trawlers are allowed to fish to the great detriment of inshore fishermen. We have a Bill now which does not copper-fasten in the same way as Deputy Dillon's Bill copper-fastened the rights of the inshore fishermen. The present Government have seen fit to leave out that very important clause. They have also seen fit to leave out Section 18 of Deputy Dillon's Bill which put the duty on the board to be set up of arranging for the importation of fish to supplement, if necessary, the supply of fish for the home market. I do not know why that particular section has been left out and I propose to move an amendment on the Committee Stage in order to see that that section is restored. I should like to see the importation of fish under the control of this board. I do not know why it is being left out. Under the present Bill as it stands that section has been omitted and the importation of fish would appear to be a matter which will not be directly the concern of the board. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain the reason for omitting that section.
I regard this Bill, if it is properly worked and if licences are granted in an intelligent manner by the Minister, if they ought to be granted at all, as setting up a monopoly for the inshore fishermen by permitting them to supply the needs of the country and, if possible, supplying fish for export. I should like to welcome this particular monopoly. I think we in Dáil Eireann are giving the inshore fishermen an opportunity of proving their worth. If it is intelligently worked, they will be given an opportunity under this Bill of supplying the home market with all the fish required and the export market if possible. The inshore fishermen, both fully and partially employed, number over 9,700. I feel, if they were provided with guaranteed markets and with a proper price, it is likely that that number would be increased and that their landings would be increased, ensuring a plentiful supply of fish. That is the hope which inspired the introduction of the last Bill and it is the hope which is inspiring the setting up of the board and the regulations under this Bill. If the inshore fishermen rise to the opportunity given by this Bill, it seems to me that we can hope for a flourishing inshore fishing industry. I would like to see the provisions which enable the Minister to grant licences used in such a fashion that the inshore fishermen's rights will not be impeded. It is the general opinion that deep-sea trawling, carried out in an extensive fashion, could eventually kill the inshore fishermen. If by this Bill we are largely doing away with deep-sea trawling and handing over the markets to the inshore fishermen, I would welcome that development, at any rate, as a trial.
Various matters of detail have been referred to in this House, and I do not propose to go into them again. In my view, the most essential thing for this new board to do is to provide proper boats and proper equipment for the inshore fishermen. If they are given the right kind of boats and adequate equipment, there is no reason in the world why they cannot land all the fish which this country requires.
Some Deputies referred to the distribution of fish as it exists at present. We have a most ludicrous position, where fish caught in any part of the coast is sent by train to Dublin and frequently sent back again to the part of the coast from which it came. There is no reason why the country should not be properly zoned, so that fish landed will be sent to particular parts of the country and that particular zones will be responsible for the landing of fish in their area.
Another matter to which the Parliamentary Secretary and the board should pay particular attention is the setting up of a proper curing industry in this country. In 1949, we had a situation where the total value of cured fish was over £100,000. In 1950, the value was over £121,000. I can see no objection to the setting up of an adequate curing industry in this country, for trial purposes, at any rate. I am informed that there is an extraordinary situation sometimes when fishermen are forbidden to go out fishing in order to allow an alleged glut in the market to be dissipated, and that we have what amounts to a restriction on the supply of fish at certain times of the year. If there were a proper system by which fish could be cured and put into cold storage, there would be no reason why the landings of fish should be curtailed and there would be no reason why we could not cut down greatly the import of cured fish which is taking place at present.
I would like to say, in conclusion, that there is no need to be uncertain as to the outcome of the fishing industry if this Bill is worked in an intelligent fashion by the Parliamentary Secretary, if he regards as paramount the rights of the inshore fishermen, if he sees that those rights are safeguarded by refusing to grant licences to deep sea trawlers when the granting of such licences will interfere with the inshore fishermen and if he sees that proper personnel are appointed to this board. If, however, he allows political considerations to weigh in his mind when appointing the personnel of this board, and if he does not regulate it in such a fashion as to enable the inshore fishermen to work with proper equipment and proper boats, I feel we may very well be faced with the position of having to come back here in a couple of years' time to introduce an amending Bill which will, in fact, be a Bill wiping out the inshore fishermen altogether. I do not wish to see that situation brought about. If the Minister has regard for the inshore fishermen and for their rights and particularly if he gives them the opportunity which they are willing to take, we will have a situation in this country where the amount of their catch is increased, their personnel is increased and where the interests of the consumer will be safeguarded.
As there is a time limit on this debate, I intend to be very brief. This Bill has been generally accepted by the House and, with the solitary exception of Deputy McMenamin, no one has seriously criticised it. First of all, it was a forward step to have placed the control of the fishing industry in the hands of a Parliamentary Secretary who, over a long number of years, has taken a very deep interest in the fishing industry and who has been known to all Deputies to have a very close knowledge of the requirements of that industry. Because of that, I feel that the misgivings expressed by Deputy Declan Costello are hardly justifiable. I do not think that anyone would seriously suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has taken on his shoulders the responsibility of improving the position of the fishing industry and of administering this Bill, would jeopardise the whole success of that programme in order to advance some narrow political objective.
Broadly speaking, this Bill seeks to widen the measure of State control over the whole fishing industry. The board to be established under this Bill will have wider and more far-reaching powers, not only over the production end of the industry but over the storage and the marketing of fish, and I feel that that is absolutely essential. Deeply as I sympathise with Deputy McMenamin's views in regard to the desirability of maintaining private enterprise, I feel it will be accepted that under private enterprise operated over the last 20 or 30 years we did not achieve success in this industry.
We will accept the fact that the fishing industry is an important national industry. The basis of the success of any national industry is that there must be a large and unfailing supply of raw material on one side and that there must be a consumer market available on the other side. No one will deny that there is available raw material for the fishing industry, inasmuch as ours is an island nation, inasmuch as the waters around our shores are comparatively rich in fish and are, as a matter of fact, being utilised by the fishing fleets of other nations.
No one will deny also that there is available a consumer market for the fishing industry, at least within our own shores. What is wrong and what must be righted under this Bill—and which I think, as far as I can read the broad outlines of the Bill, is intended to be righted—is that our equipment available to reap the entire harvest of the sea is not entirely efficient for the purpose and, in the second place, our marketing system for bringing the fish to the consumer in every part of the land is altogether inadequate. We must remedy the deficiencies on the production side by ensuring that the best equipment possible is put to sea. We must not be deterred by any narrow or sentimental views in regard to any particular type of boat or type of equipment. We must catch the fish with the most efficient equipment that can be utilised. That, to my mind, is fundamental and essential.
As far as our inshore fishermen are concerned, they must be provided with up-to-date and efficient power-driven craft. In addition to that, the boats must set out into the ocean with the best trawler equipment that can be provided. Those two lines of attack or lines of production are necessary. They are not and should not act detrimentally against each other. If our trawler fleets are controlled, as I think they must be by the board, as visualised in this Bill, they cannot be used and should not be used to destroy the working or the means of livelihood of the inshore fishermen. The trawlers for fishing should be used to supplement the supplies caught by the inshore fishermen, so that, in effect, we would have to try to have a regular all the year round supply of fish.
Again it is essential that the means of freezing, preserving and storing of fish shall be provided so that we will not have a glut one week and a shortage the following week. All this entails organisation. It entails, to a certain extent, a measure of control which private enterprise, even with the best intentions in the world, could not supply. That is the justification for the board being established under this Bill and the justification for this Bill itself. If we accept these fundamental facts, that we must have efficient equipment to secure the fish, an efficient method of storing fish and of distributing it to the consumers, then we must also accept the fact that all our harbours which are utilised for fishing purposes ought to be put into an up-to-date condition.
I am a representative of a constituency in which there are harbours which have been crying out for improvement over a long number of years. I have had the honour almost every year, and sometimes twice a year, of accompanying a pilgrimage representing either the Arklow or the Wicklow Harbour Board and the local representatives of those two townships to the Department of Industry and Commerce to secure the necessary grants to improve those harbours. A certain amount has been done and great sympathy has been shown by the Department towards the claims of the people of those areas in regard to the harbours. But, so far, the work has not been carried out; so far those harbours are not in a condition to accommodate fishing fleets or any other type of ship, but I am dealing in the main with shipping fleets, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary should direct his attention immediately to the task of seeing that every harbour which accommodates a fishing fleet will be put into an up-to-date and modern condition.
If the Parliamentary Secretary carries out this work that has been entrusted to him and in co-operation with the board which he will have the right to nominate or to appoint, I believe we can look forward with confidence to the passing of this Bill marking the beginning of a substantial improvement in the quantity of fish landed and, secondly, in a demand for fish and the utilisation of fish generally by our people. I have no doubt whatever that the citizens of this country would be quite willing to purchase fish in much larger quantities than at present if they could be at least as sure of securing their supplies in each market town and village throughout the country as they are of securing other food supplies.
On the face of it, this Bill is justified. It seems to mark the only reasonable and national approach to this problem. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not listen to the advice of those who suggested that everybody employed or almost everybody employed in the fishing industry should be employed directly by the board established under the Bill. It is my belief that the more devolution of power and authority there will be in this matter the better. It is better to give a certain amount of freedom and independence to local people to own their own boats and to local firms to carry on their work, provided that each and all carry on their work co-operatively in the national effort to develop this industry. Through the enlightened system provided in this Bill, I believe that can be done and I sincerely hope it will be done.
I want to make it clear that I have no sympathy whatever with the suggestion that was made by one or two Deputies that the powers under this Bill may be abused in a political way by the Parliamentary Secretary. He has no right to do such a thing and I do not think that any reasonable person would expect him to be guilty of such.
Mr. Coburn
I should like to say a few words on this Bill. Like other Deputies, I welcome this Bill but at the same time——
Would it be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to be given about ten minutes in order to conclude the Bill to-day?
I understand that no agreement has been made.
I know that no agreement has been made. I am merely asking.
We are quite prepared to do it. We have not held the Bill up.
I have not suggested anything of the kind.
Mr. Coburn
Whether it is my good or bad fortune I have not spoken very often in this House lately, but it is all right as far as I, personally, am concerned. Like other Deputies, I welcome the Bill but, being a realist, I do not believe for one moment that the mere passing of this Bill will put the fishing industry in a prosperous condition. I have been in this House for 25 years and I have listened to Bills being introduced. I have heard discussions every year on the Estimates. I have heard suggestions that the fishing industry could be made one of the biggest industries in the country, next to agriculture. But over those 25 years I have seen little, if any, improvement in the fishing industry. Whilst welcoming the Bill, as I say, I think it is hardly fair to suggest that the mere passing of this Bill and the mere appointment of Deputy Bartley as Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the fishing industry in this country, is any guarantee that the fishing industry will be placed in a prosperous condition. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary the greatest success and the best of good luck.
Let us get it into our minds, once and for all, that we are not a fish-eating people. There are other countries with a fishing tradition who must at certain times dispense with actually 50 per cent. of their fishing fleets because there is no market for the fish. When I hear a man of the experience of Deputy Cogan getting up and saying that there is no reason why there should be any competition between the big trawlers and the inshore fishermen, I do not think Deputy Cogan has given any thought to the matter. A trawler would bring in as much fish in one catch as would supply nearly the whole of this country. Where are your little inshore fishermen going to get a living with their boats? Let us be clear about this thing. If this Bill is going to safeguard the interests of the inshore fishermen you cannot have deep sea trawlers in competition with them.
What are we going to do with the foreign fleets that will compete with them?
Mr. Coburn
We have an idea in this country that we can build a wall around it and carry on, serenely oblivious of what happens in the outside world. That cannot be done. As a matter of fact—and here I may be accused of heresy—the fish do not belong to English, Irish or any other waters. They swim round the world until they are caught and that is that.
Well said.
Mr. Coburn
We all know that the fishermen are hard worked but it is their lot to engage in this particular business. Nature plays a very big part in this matter. A storm lasting three or four consecutive weeks could arise thereby preventing the fishermen from going out. We have seen how difficult it is to obtain fish in inland towns and big sea port towns, such as Dundalk and Drogheda. At times in those towns one could not get the tail of a fish. Even when fish was available the price of it was beyond the ability of the people to pay. That is one of the things that was left out of this discussion altogether. The stories I hear about the price of fish almost make one despair whether there is anything approaching honesty in this country or not in regard to the price that is paid to fishermen and the price the consumer has to pay. I think that is a matter that requires the very careful attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and of those who will have any responsibility in the putting into operation of this Bill.
As I say, one could discuss this matter for a long time. Year after year, we have spent out time trying to introduce Bills in this House to improve the fishing industry. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary the best of good luck. He is engaged in a very difficult job but the members of this House should get it into their heads that the passing of this Bill will not put the fishing industry in a sound condition. That is just a wrong impression to have.
There is no fortune for those engaged in fishing at any time, as far as I know, except in times of stress such as war when, possibly, it is very difficult to get any fish at all. I should not like to let this occasion pass without, at least, wishing the Parliamentary Secretary the best of luck. At the same time, I should like to express the opinion that he is engaged in a very difficult task, one which will require not only the co-operation of the Deputies in this House but also the co-operation of the fishermen themselves. You have a very great difference of opinion even amongst those in whose interests this Bill is being passed. Whether that is a peculiar trait in our character or not, the fact remains that one hears a great difference of opinion expressed as to what should be done in the best interests of the industry. We all hope for the best and we wish the Parliamentary Secretary the best of luck in any steps that he will take in the coming year to put this industry in a proper, sound financial condition.
The debate itself has sufficiently indicated the very difficult nature of the problem which is being attempted to be solved by this measure. I endorse what the last speaker has said, that the passage of this Bill or the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary is no guarantee at all of the solution of this problem. I hope that anything I have said in my opening remarks has not had the appearance of conveying any such impression. I am only too painfully aware of how difficult the problem is and also of the truth of one of the final remarks of the last speaker in regard to the differences that exist amongst the fishermen themselves, even in the same fishing boat. It has been the custom to seem to create a conflict between the interests of the inshore fishermen and the consumer. I do not think there is any necessity to proceed on the basis that such a conflict does, in fact, exist. It may seem to exist when the competence of deep sea trawlers is compared with the limitations from which our inshore fishermen suffer. As some of the speakers have pointed out in this debate, the utilisation of deep sea boats, to the extent to which they will be used, will be governed by the size of the gap which has to be filled between landings from inshore boats and the home demand. If we bear that fact in mind I think it will be realised that there is no necessity to stress the apparent conflict between the inshore fisherman and the deep sea fisherman.
Several speakers suggested that the men should be equipped with proper boats and proper gear. We intend to carry out the wishes of Deputies in that respect but I would point out that when you come to apply that principle you have got to decide what it means. You may find that you have been equipping your inshore men with boats of a certain kind which are limited in their range so that if you continue to provide that type of boat you only intensify the competition that exists between our own men in these home waters. It is obvious that you are not adding to the type of equipment which they really need and that you are not carrying out the suggestions of the Deputies in regard to proper gear and equipment.
Fishing is a peace-time problem. No matter what conditions might prevail before a war, when war breaks out prosperity descends almost automatically on the fishing industry. It happened in the 1914-18 war and it happened again in the last war. The decline began to set in after the last war and is, in fact, steadily progressing. In the period from 1913 to the present day, our worst year was 1936 from the point of landings of demersal fish, and 1945 was our best year.
At this point I might digress a little to say that the gross landings of fish— taking herrings and mackerel and bulking them with prime fish and round fish—are no indication as to whether we are supplying the nation's requirements.
Prior to the advent of the marine engine, the fishing industry had a history of great scarcity or great abundance. It was always either a feast or a famine. Even under the benign influence of the Congested Districts Board, there were periods in which the fishing industry disappeared and then came back again. That has been the position all down the years.
I join issue with the people who say that no progress has been made in the development of the fishing industry since the advent of home government. Quite the reverse is the case. I have a graph here which sets out the position: I am referring now to demersal fish. Neither I nor anybody else can hope to base any development of the industry on fish that shoals irregularly and on which you cannot base any accurate calculation. I refer particularly to herrings and mackerel.
Prior to the advent of the marine engine, the fishing industry, as carried out by sailing boats, was, in the main, confined to herrings and mackerel. The prosperity from herrings and mackerel was gained in markets very far away, such as markets in America and in Eastern Europe. These two markets have been closed since shortly after the end of the First World War. If we had not been able to adapt the marine engine to the needs of the fishermen after the end of the First World War we should have no industry at all because we could not have undertaken successfully the development of trawl fishing without the aid of the marine engine.
The Sea Fisheries Association was set up in an attempt to counteract the peace-time slump of which we have had records for a long period. Possibly they started off inadequately in the matter of equipment: I am again referring to the question of proper gear and equipment—an expression which has been used very much in the course of this debate. In so far as the west coast is concerned, I know that that type of equipment was not adequate for the job there. The east coast did make some very considerable progress with the aid of the Sea Fisheries Association and we now have a fairly prosperous industry on the east coast. There has been progress at one or two points on the west coast as well but, generally, a larger boat is required for the west coast. We propose to carry out the new developments under the direct auspices of the new board. The large type of boat which it is proposed to employ will be utilised to augment the catches of the inshore fishermen. The supplying of the market that is not now adequately supplied—the inland towns—will be the first call on the operations of these boats. Refrigeration can be used to solve the problem of regularity, continuity and variety of supply. It can be used fairly successfully here because the total quantity of fish required to be handled for our home demands is not of such an order as to necessitate refrigeration on such a large scale as to make the matter impossible.
I believe that in Britain the problem could not be handled because the quantities they have to use are so very large. We do not assert that we can solve the problem of gluts by refrigeration and cold storage. Gluts of herring and mackerel can be so great that there must be losses very often in the marketing of them. The best we can do in present circumstances is to develop the home market so as to absorb to the greatest possible extent the home catches of herring and mackerel. Fish meal is another outlet which will be used for the purpose of dealing with these gluts. With regard to fish meal I want to say that all that can be done for the present and that all that is proposed to be done—in fact, a beginning has already been made—is to experiment in the matter of fish meal. A factory for this purpose is being erected in Killybegs. It will be in operation in a short time, we expect, as soon as the delivery of machinery has been made and when the operations of that factory have been observed for a period of a year or so——
Does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to put the Second Reading or to adjourn the debate, as we have now reached the time fixed?
I would like to deal with many points which have been raised.
We will have tons of time in Committee.
Take another ten minutes.
If the House is agreeable to my dealing with these points in Committee and to giving me the Second Reading now, I will promise all members who have spoken to deal with all the points raised.
That would be easier.
It would take too long if I were to attempt to do it now.
We will agree to give the Second Reading now but we are in doubt about amendments and I would suggest that the time for amendments be extended, at least to Monday night.
I am agreeable. Might we provisionally arrange to have the Committee Stage on the 27th, next Thursday?
Yes.
I regret that time has not been available, as important matters have been raised but I hope that it will be possible to deal with them adequately on the Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for March 27th.