Vol. 142 No. 1
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £38,200 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.
Is maith liom a bheith i ndon a chur in iúl don Dáil go raibh an bhliain anuraidh níos fearr ag na hiascairí mhara ná an bhliain roimpí. Ó thairg mé Meastachán cheana, dí-rialaíodh praghas an éisc. Dá bharr sin tharla ardú praghais ar an bpoinnte. San am sin bhí an t-iasc roinnt gann. Le feabhsú aimsire san Earrach, d'fhairsing sé cuid mhaith agus d'ísligh an praghas agus d'éirigh sé chomh staidéarthach agus is féidir le praghas soláthairtí a bheith nach bhfuil staidéarthach iad fhéin. Cuirtear chuile shaghas éisc aran margadh poiblí anois ó dí-rialaíodh an praghas. Roimhe sin, díoltaí cuid mhaith de na cineálacha den chéadscoth—cineálacha na mbeadaí—díreach leis na siopadóirí. Ní féidir a rá ar díoladh ar an bpraghas rialaithe é. Na cineálacha eile a cheannaíos an pobal fré chéile, ghnídís an praghas ríalaithe beagnach i gcónaí. Níl srian oifigiúil leis an bpraghas anois, agus athraíonn an praghas do réir tóir an phobail air nó méad na soláthairtí. Le seanchleachtadh, tá a fhios ag na siopadóirí i mBaile Átha Cliath an méid éisc a bhfuil tóir sheasta air ó sheachtain go seachtain. Gheibhtear air sin airgead atá cothrom go leor leis an sean-phraghas rialaithe. Má bhíonn fairsingeacht thar an méid sin ann titeann an margadh faoin bpraghas sin. Is iad báid na hÉireann faoi ndear fairsingeacht mar sin, mar tá allmhuirithe faoi smacht ag an mBord Iascaigh Mhara, agus ní ligeann An Bord isteach seachtain ar bith ach an méid a bhíos easpaitheach i soláthar sa mbaile. Scaití, ní bhíonn tuairim barainneach ag An mBord faoin easpa sin toisc toradh thar an gcoitian a bheith ag na hiascairí, ach braitheann sé sin ar an aimsir agus ar choinníollacha eile thar cumas An Bhoird. Deir lucht an eolais i dtrádáil an éisc nach mór soláthar a bheith iomarcach do réir deich faoin gcéad má táthar chun dóthain a bheith ar fáil i gcónaí. Ar ndóigh, bíonn an iomarcacht níos mó ná sin, scaití, agus fágann sé sin fadhb le fuascailt. Tá fonn ar na hiascairí a gcuid éisc a chur go Baile Atha Cliath, agus dá bharr sin tarlaíonn go minic go mbíonn fuíollach ar an margadh sin gan díol. Dá bhféadtaí na soláthairtí d'imdháil níos cothroime ar fud na tíre ní bheadh an scéal amhlaidh; agus, freisin, bheadh teacht timpeall againn ar an gcúis chlamhsáin a cluintear go minic gur deacair iasc úr d'fháil go rialta faoin tír. Is fada na hudaráis ag meádh na ceiste seo, agus níl siad gan toradh ar a gcuid meáite. Tá gléasra mhinéisc bunaithe acu cheana, agus tá tuilleadh den rud céanna beartaithe. Tá beartaithe freisin acu gléasra deataithe a bhunú. Bhéarfaidh an dá dheis seo bealach le brabach a dhéanamh as iasc a théas amú faoi láthair nó a díoltar ar bheagánairgid. Ní féidir, ámh, an oiread a thabhairt ar iasc le haghaidh minéisc agus a gheibhtear ar iasc le n-ithe. Deirtear go ndéanann an t-iasc an iomarca taistil ó fhágfas sé an bád go sroisfidh sé bord a lucht itte. Caitear é a chur ar an margadh ar an bpoinnte faoi láthair; ach táthar le tuilleadh deis reóite agus fuarstórála a bhunú. Ar an gcaoi seo síltear go bhféadfar margáil an éisc a rialú agus a réasúnú ar mhaithe leis an bpobal agus na hiascairí.
Mar gheall ar an tiormacht ní raibh an bhliain anuraidh chomh maith le harú-anuraidh i dtaobh na mbradán. Fiú amháin ins na hinbhir, deir na hiascairí nach raibh an rath céanna ar an iascach agus a bhí cheana—agus a shliocht sin ar an onnmhuiriú. Ins na haibhneacha, coibhríodh cuid mhaith éisc ins na poill; tharla sé seo arís i mbliana. Nuair a bhíos an scéal amhlaidh caithfidh na coimeádaithe a bheith ar a seacht n-aire, faitíos millteanais ag lucht póitseála. Níltear sásta leis an gcóir chosanta atá ann. Cé gur fiú níos mó go mór iascach na mbradán anois ná mar b'fhiú cheana, is beag athrú atá ar theacht-isteach na mBord Coimeádaithe le fiche bliain anuas. Táthar ag beartú chun tuilleadh airgid d'fháil as iascach na mbradán le haghaidh cumhdach na n-abhann; agus síltear go mbeidh an bheartaíocht sin i bhfoirm tairiscintí roimh tús na bliana iascaigh arís.
Tá obair fhónta á dhéanamh ag an Iontaobhas Iascaigh Intíre Incorpraithe a bunaíodh i 1951 chun rath a chur ar iascach na mbreac. Is fundúireacht í seo a thógas anonn ó dhream ar bith, poiblí nó príobháideach, iascaireachtaí chun a bhfeabhsuithe ar mhaithe leis an bpobal slat-iascaigh. Tá an tIontaobhas ag laghdú an méid éisc ghairbh i lochanna áiride agus ag cur breac óg isteach. Is mór an tacaíocht an obair seo do lucht forbartha na cuartaíochta, agus is cóir a admháil anseo go bhfuil meas ar An mBord Fáilte as ucht ar sholáthraigh siad d'airgead le haghaidh na hoibre fónta seo.
San Aibreán scaipeadh céad tuarascáil Choimisiún Iascaigh An Fheabhail. Bhain sé leis an sé mhí dar críoch an tríochadú lá, Meán Fómhair, naoi gcéad déag caoga dó. Is dóigh go bhfuilsé léite ag Teachtaí, agus, ar an ábhar sin, ní thagród go mion dó. Is léir uaidh go bhfuil an sean-chancar seo réitithe go héifeachtúil cothrom ag an gCoimisiún. Tá buíochas ag dul don Choimisiún as ucht a bhfuil déanta acu cheana, agus táim á ghlacadh sin leo anois.
Tá meastachán na bliana seo laghdaithe an méid a caitheadh anuraidh ar cheannach Iascach An Fheabhail, agus tá sé thíos cuid mhaith, freisin, san airgead le haghaidh cúitimh a bhaineas le toirmeasc ar líontóireacht i bhfíoruisce. Sé seo an chéad bhliain nach bhfuil airgead ar bith sa Meastachán i gcóir báid, agus mar sin de, a sholáthar—tá an t-airgead sin le fáil anois mar airleacain as an bPríomh-Chiste. Laghdaíonn na hathruithe seo an Meastachán go mór le hais na bliana anuraidh, ach ní laghdaíonn siad caiteachas ar na seirbhísí buana. Tá siadsan níos fearr ná ariamh, agus fe amhlaidh go mbeifear ag cur leo is himeacht aimsire i leaba a bhaint díoal.
The Estimate for fisheries for 1953-54 is for a net sum of £112,000, of which £74,000 has been granted by way of the Vote on Account, leaving £38,200 to be moved for as the Vote to Complete, as stated in the Money Resolution. The Estimate represents a net decrease of £99,330 as compared with 1952-53. The respective increases and decreases in the various sub-heads are shown in the printed Estimates. It is not, I think, necessary for me to explain all the increases and decreases as several of them are what might be described as of a casual nature, but I would make the following explanations in regard to the sub-heads which show considerable variations compared with last year.
Sub-head F (1)—Grants to Boards of Conservators and Local Authorities, etc.—shows an increase of £5,800. The statutory recoupment to local authorities of losses arising from the exemption of fisheries from local rates, pursuant to the Fisheries Act, 1925, shows an increase of £1,500 in the provision as compared with 1952-53. The increased provision is considered necessary as local rates have tended to increase steadily during recent years.The provision for grants to boards of conservators shows an increase of £4,500 compared with last year. This increase arises out of the need for a larger measure of assistance to several boards of conservators whose income from local sources, licence duties and rates is not sufficient to enable them to carry out satisfactorily the function of protecting and conserving the fisheries which is imposed on them by the Fisheries Acts.
Sub-head F (5)—Compensation, etc. —shows a decrease of £17,000 compared with 1952-53. This sub-head provides for payment of compensation in respect of the abolition of freshwater netting under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, 1939, and also under the Freshwater Fisheries (Prohibition of Netting) Act, 1951. Up to the 31st March, 1953, a total sum of £84,576 has been paid as compensation under these Acts. Owing to the complex issues involved in examination of claims and legal investigation of entitlement to the compensation moneys, clearance in some of the larger cases is proceeding somewhat slowly. It is anticipated that some claims may still remain uncleared at the end of the current financial year. They will not, I expect, be very many, and at the latest, full clearance should be effected early in the next financial year.
Sub-head F (5)—Foyle Fisheries— has only a token provision of £5. It appears likely that future expenses relating to management of the Foyle area by the Foyle Fisheries Commission can be met from the revenue accruing to the commission from licence duties, rents and rates. The amount appearing in the Estimates for 1952-53 under this sub-head—£57,765— was made up almost entirely of the cost of the acquisition, jointly with the authorities in Belfast, of the fishing rights in the tidal waters of the Rivers Foyle and Faughan.
Sub-head G—Grants-in-Aid for An Bord Iascaigh Mhara—shows a provision of £31,330 compared with a total sum of £64,580 provided in the Estimates for 1952-53 for the services of both the Sea Fisheries Association (which ceased to exist on the 24th April, 1952) and the board which succeededit. Under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, advances to the board for development work and the supply of boats and gear to fishermen are to be issued from the Central Fund and do not, accordingly, appear in the annual Estimates.
In this connection I may say that the board hope to receive from the Central Fund during the current financial year advances amounting to £154,750. The sum appearing in the Estimates, £31,330, is made up as to Grant-in-Aid towards administrative expenses of £26,330 and Grant-in-Aid towards development schemes of £5,000. The figure for administration is £6,575 greater than the aggregate sum provided in 1952-53 for both bodies. This increase is accounted for principally by the need for new provision of £3,270 for the payment of the fees and travelling expenses of the members of the board and for the travelling expenses of the members of An Comhlachas Iascaigh Mhara. The figure, I may add, relates to the period from 23rd April, 1952, to the 31st March, 1954. Other items included are £1,000 as an anticipated contribution towards superannuation scheme for the board's employees, and £1,750 as a Grant-in-Aid towards the employment by the board of consultants and technicians, as required, for special work. As to the £5,000 Grant-in-Aid of development, the details are as follows:—The board requires a sum of £3,000 to complete the work in connection with the Killybegs quick-freeze and fish meal plants on which £24,000 has been expended to date. A sum of £1,500 is proposed by way of grants under this sub-head and the balance of £1,500 will be sought by way of advances from the Central Fund. A sum of £800 is included for the restocking of oyster beds in Clew Bay, where an effort is being made to rehabilitate the oyster fisheries that flourished there in former times, and £1,250 for the reconditioning of the board's marketing depots. At least a further sum of £1,250 for this latter work will be sought as an advance from the Central Fund. The rest of the provision for development by way of a Grant-in-Aid is made up of £950 to meet the net working loss on theCromane mussel purification station, which has accumulated for some years past owing to the difficulties which have been experienced in marketing mussels from Cromane on the British markets, and £500 for miscellaneous items of development.
Landings of sea fish, not including shell-fish, in 1952 were greater as to quantity and value than in 1951. In quantity the increase amounted to almost 16,000 cwts. and in value the improvement came to approximately £47,000. An important aspect of the improvement which has taken place is that it was effected by increased landings by the inshore boats. The landings of demersal fish by the inshore boats amounted to 126,000 cwts. while steam trawlers—the last of which ceased operations during 1952—landed only 8,600 cwts. The corresponding figures for the previous year were 105,500 cwts. and 13,500 cwts. The landings of pelagic fish, that is mainly herrings and mackerel, came to 68,000 cwts. with a value of £81,400 in 1952. Herring landings at 55,000 cwts. showed some improvement compared with 1951. The season cannot, however, be regarded as altogether satisfactory as the shoals did not appear in any great density and there was not much encouragement, accordingly, for the fishermen to pursue them to the exclusion of other fishing. The only point at which landings could be said to have been satisfactory was Achill. As regards mackerel, the landings in 1952 at 13,000 cwts. continued a decline which has been evident for some years past. The restricted landings are attributed to the fact that the shoals did not come sufficiently close to shore to enable the small type of boat which usually engages in this fishing in an intensive way to reach them. The fishermen had, however, some recompense for the reduced landings in the better prices realised for the fish which, in the aggregate, returned a figure of £21,000 compared with £20,000 in 1951.
As to shell-fish, quite a considerable improvement took place in 1952 compared with 1951. The overall improvement is best expressed in terms of value, as some varietiesof shell-fish are marketed by count, while others are handled by weight. The value of all shell-fish landed in 1952 was £124,000 which shows an increase of almost 33 per cent. on the figures for 1951. The varieties which contributed most to the increase were crawfish, lobsters and periwinkles and, as quite a satisfactory trade in these varieties is being developed with France, I think it may be claimed that this market is proving of much advantage to our fishermen.
Deputies will remember that, under the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, the Sea Fisheries Association, which had been functioning since 1931, ceased to exist in April, 1952, and was replaced by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The policy which the board has been charged with implementing is the development of the national fishing industry on the basis of the consolidation and improvement of the inshore fishermen's position. To do this the two broad features of the board's work are the supply and maintenance of modern fishing boats to fishermen who can be depended upon to make the best use of them, and the better marketing of fish so that demand may be increased and, as far as possible, satisfactory returns assured to the fishermen. The board operates four boatyards and these were maintained in full production in the construction of new fishing vessels and the servicing, repair, etc., of existing craft during 1952. In addition, as and when required, the output of the board's own yards was supplemented by placing work with some of the other yards existing in the country.
During 1952 ten fishing boats, eight of which were of the 50 foot class, were issued by the board to fishermen on hire-purchase terms. The total number of 50 foot boats, up to date in every respect and suitable for all classes of inshore fishing, issued since materials for the building and furnishing of boats became available with the passing of emergency conditions, is now 25. The work of these boats is clearly beginning to show itself in the increased landings which are being made by the inshore fishermen. In the current financial year it is estimatedthat the board will need £75,000 for the provision of boats, etc., to fishermen, and this sum as and when required will be issued as a repayable advance from the Central Fund.
As to the other aspect of the board's work, that is marketing of fish, 1952 showed an increase in the value of sales as compared with 1951. In 1952 a gross sum of £281,000 was realised from sales, £201,000 being the proceeds from fish sold by public auction and £79,000 the value of fish sold on a wholesale basis throughout the country. It is one of the principal points in the board's marketing activities to effect the widest possible distribution of fish so that a widespread demand may be fostered. At present the board distributes fish from five centres, Dublin, Cork, Killybegs, Dingle and Galway, and it has in mind the opening up of other centres of distribution in the near future. It is accepted by all who understand the difficulties of the fish trade that in order to have a regular and increasing demand for fish by the consuming public, supplies must be made available regularly and in some variety. The consumption of fish per head of our population is very low compared with other countries and there is room for considerable improvement in that regard. At present, unfortunately, our fleet of inshore boats cannot provide adequate supplies continuously throughout the year owing to bad weather conditions from time to time. To get over this handicap and to provide a more or less stable supply throughout the year the board now operate three high-sea fishing boats.
Two of these vessels commenced fishing in December and the other in February, and to the end of March they landed fish to the value of over £10,000. In order to keep an adequate flow of supplies the board finds it necessary from time to time to import supplies of fresh fish. During 1952 the value of such fish imported came to £99,000. This was a very considerable drop from the corresponding figure in 1951 which was £150,000. There is, however, considerable leeway still to be made up and the board intends during the current financial year to putin hands the construction of two 80 foot motor fishing vessels at an estimated cost of £60,000. These vessels may not, of course, be ready to commence fishing operations before the end of the present year. They will, with the three vessels already in commission, make a very valuable contribution to the country's fish supplies, and thereby help to reduce very considerably the existing volume of imports.
A prime necessity in the proper care of fish on board a fishing vessel, especially those vessels which can remain away from port for a few days, is an adequate supply of ice. Up to quite recently this question did not arise to any serious extent because the great majority of the inshore fishing boats in use returned to harbour with each day's takings. The tendency now is, with the increase in size and efficiency of the boats being acquired by our fishermen, to extend their fishing time at sea and the question of ice, accordingly, is becoming one of greater importance. At present ice is not available at many fishing centres and, until that situation is remedied, the handling of our fish supplies can not be entirely satisfactory.
An Bord Iascaigh Mhara is alive to this situation and it proposes to erect, during the present financial year, two ice-making plants, each having a capacity of about 50 tons per week. It is intended, too, that ice from these plants will be distributed to ports where fish is landed, even in relatively small quantities, and kept available there in ice stores for use as needed. The cost of this development scheme is expected to be £25,000, which will be made available to the board from the Central Fund as a repayable advance when required. With the progressive increase in the catching power of our fishing fleet the position is being reached where provision must be made to deal with catches which cannot be absorbed in the ordinary way for human consumption. This can best be done in fish meal plants. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara has established a small fish meal plant at Killybegs,which has proved that such plants can be operated successfully where suitable conditions exist as to landings, etc. There is a ready demand in this country and abroad for fish meal and there would be no difficulty in disposing of the production from another plant with an output capacity much greater than that at Killybegs. The board is considering the erection of further plant for this purpose.
Smoked fish enters very largely into the distribution of fish in this country as, with its prolonged period of preservation compared with fresh fish and advantages as to handling, etc., it is very suitable for dispatch to remote places. At present there is very little production within the country of smoked fish except kippered herrings, and it is consequently necessary to import rather heavy quantities. Last year such imports cost us over £126,000. With the increased landings of white fish to be expected following the special steps being taken by the board to expand our fishing capacity, it is desirable that an effort should be made to increase our output of smoked fish with the twofold advantage of providing a further outlet for home landings and reducing imports of smoked fish.
Methods of smoking fish have been improved in recent years in other countries in order to make the product more attractive to the consumer. These improvements have been studied by the board, and the latest proved techniques will be applied to development of this kind, which it is proposed to initiate during the present year, and for which it is proposed to seek an advance of £8,000 from the Central Fund.
In addition to the advances from the Central Fund to which I have just referred, further advances amounting to £4,750 will be made available to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara during the current financial year. These advances will be used as to £2,000 to complete the purchase of new office premises in Dublin, and £1,250 for the reconditioning of the board's marketing depots for which £750 is also, as I have already stated, to be provided by way of Grant-in-Aid,and £1,500 to complete work on the board's existing quick-freezing and fish meal plant. For these items Grants-in-Aid amounting to £2,500 are also being made available this year.
As regards inland fisheries, the output of salmon and trout for 1952 showed a considerable decrease compared with 1951. The value of the catches in 1952 was £478,000, while in 1951 the figure was £681,000. These sums exclude the catches in the Moville Fishery District which was incorporated in the area administered by the Foyle Fisheries Commission. Conditions favoured netting during the early part of 1952 and runs of spring fish were good. The runs of grilse, however, showed a serious drop and the netting season terminated in most districts much earlier than usual. Angling conditions were not favourable over the greater part of the country for a considerable period, but catches were not greatly below those recorded in 1951. The catches of both sea trout and eels were somewhat better than in 1951. Exports of salmon in 1952 realised only £638,000 as against £844,000 in 1951. This was, to some measure, due to the somewhat reduced prices obtained on the export markets.
The production of salmon ova at the State-assisted hatchery at Lismore was very satisfactory and all reasonable requirements were met, including supplies needed to rehabilitate stocks of the River Liffey, which suffered a rather serious setback in 1951 when a considerable number of fish were killed through the release of quantities of mud through the dam at Leixlip. Production of sea trout and brown trout ova was unsatisfactory in 1952. In the case of brown trout, the failure was due to the prolonged drought conditions towards the end of 1951 which rendered the collection of ova impossible at many places. The deficiency could not be made up by imports of ova from Great Britain as somewhat similar difficulties were experienced at the hatcheries in that country. The income of boards of conservators in 1952 at £51,600 showed an increase compared with 1951 when the figure was £44,700. Some of the increasewas due to the payment of increased grants to certain boards which needed financial assistance from State funds. The aggregate expenditure of the boards amounted to £54,400 and from this it is clear that some boards are finding it impossible to fulfil their functions, mainly in the matter of fishery protection, from their present sources of revenue. I have at present under consideration a scheme for the provision of additional funds for boards of conservators, and the necessary legislation will be brought before the House as early as possible. In 1952, boards of conservators employed 1,200 waterkeepers and their efforts, reinforced by the valuable co-operation and assistance of the Garda Síochána, resulted in almost 300 prosecutions for fishery offences. In dealing with the inland fisheries I must, in order to give a more or less complete picture of the efforts that are being made to make the best of these fisheries, make reference to the work being done by the Inland Fisheries Trust.
The provision for that body in the Estimates for the current financial year is £7,760, an increase of £2,860 compared with last year. The activities of the trust have expanded very rapidly since its establishment in 1951. The trust has, I am glad to say, received full co-operation and enthusiatic support from the organised anglers throughout the country, and now it has under its care and in course of development, brown trout fishing waters in 12 counties. These waters comprise 30 lakes of a total area of 25,000 acres, and 500 miles of rivers excluding minor tributaries. These waters have come to the trust mainly through the E.S.B. and the Land Commission, and I am glad to acknowledge the co-operation and help extended to the trust by these bodies. Special mention, however, must also be made of the fact that three fisheries with considerable potentialities for development have been handed over to the trust by private owners, and four more such transfers are being arranged. These owners deserve the special thanks of the large number of people in this country interested in the popular sportof brown trout angling. In the waters under its management the trust is directing its efforts towards building up the depleted trout stocks by eliminating predatory coarse fish as a first measure, and then where it is safe to do so, turning in small trout transferred from other waters. I should also mention that the trust is taking a major part, in conjunction with An Bord Fáilte, in a scheme for the development of the large lakes in the western side of the country—Corrib, Mask, Conn and Arrow. This scheme, which is being financed by An Bord Fáilte, is being carried on through the agency of the local angling associations under the supervision of the trust.
To sum up the position, the total amount which it is desired to provide from public funds for the purposes of the Fisheries Administration in the current year comes to £304,380. The gross expenditure provided for in the Estimates now presented to the House comes to £149,630, and the advances for capital purposes proposed to be sought from the Central Fund amount to, as already stated, £154,750. The receipts or Appropriations-in-Aid expected to come to hand in the Fisheries Vote amount to £37,430, leaving the net expenditure envisaged on fisheries services at £266,950.
I do not think that there are any other particulars as to the work of the Fisheries Administration during 1952 which call for mention here, but I will, of course, be pleased to supply any further information which may be sought by Deputies or any explanations which they may require as to the sums set down in the Estimate for Fisheries, 1953-54.
The most outstanding point that struck me during the Parliamentary Secretary's speech was that we are importing fish to the tune of £156,000, while he comes to this House for a net sum of £112,000 for his Department. I think a better effort than that should be made.
£99,000.
For the importsThe Parliamentary Secretary quoted £156,000.
That refers to smoked fish.
£99,000 for fresh fish?
That is right.
Then that makes the matter even worse, because it brings the total to £255,000 for our total imports of fish. Each year, the Vote for the Department of Fisheries comes before this House and it does not get the same attention as some other Votes do. There is scarcely a Bill or a measure or a Vote that comes before this House for discussion on which a Deputy from some constituency or other does not raise the cry of emigration, flight from the land, and falling population, particularly along the seaboard.
I want to bring home to the Parliamentary Secretary that, by virtue of the office which he holds, he has a powerful lever, if not to stop emigration altogether at least to check it considerably. He can achieve that by extending and giving full rein to the section of the Department over which he has control.
I was amazed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary state that only 12 fishing boats issued by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are at work around our coasts.
There are over 600 altogether. Ten were issued last year.
Would I be correct in saying that some of them are very out of date and that quite a considerable percentage of the 600 so engaged are little more than currachs?
Six hundred power boats.
All equipped with modern gear and up to date?
Yes.
The yield from these is extremely small. The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that along the coast of the county I come from, Mayo, and his own county, Galway,are some of the best fishing grounds in Western Europe. Between the City of Galway and the town of Ballina, there is a coastline of about 150 miles where the fishermen have a tradition and a knowledge, second to none, of the fishing grounds. An additional factor is the very poor quality of the land. The same applies to the coastline of Sligo, of Donegal and even down to Clare, Kerry and Cork. Every maritime county opens up a vast field for improvement, and I am reminded of another leakage in our national economy when the Parliamentary Secretary speaks of the £225,000 worth of fish which is imported each year, while the value of our own catches is only a small fraction of that amount. I refer to forestry. If we are to build up our nation, if we are to keep the young skilful men at home, we should provide work for them, the kind of work in which they have grown up. Factories and all the rest of it are all very well, but they will be located in the towns and we must make an honest effort to keep as many of our young men on the land as possible. I have said on many occasions previously that I have never known a young man to emigrate willingly, if he had a reasonable chance of making a decent living at home, and afforestation——
We cannot discuss afforestation on this Vote.
I cannot help recalling that, in the matter of foreign timber, we are importing £8,000,000 worth and, in the matter of fish, we are importing £225,000 worth. Both these sums would go a long way towards giving much employment at home and providing an incentive to our young men and women to stay at home. I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary for the decline that has taken place in the past 100 or 120 years but I do blame him, as I will blame any successor of his, for not trying to stop this leakage. We throw our hands up to Heaven in pious horror at the idea of importing industrial goods of a kind which we could produce and ought to be producing at home, but here is something on ourdoorstep—a vast market for fish. The demand for fish is very real throughout the country and it is a raw material which will cost little or nothing to harvest. From my knowledge of the officials in the Department, I know that they need no urging. They are fully alive to the importance of the industry and are anxious to expand it on safe and sound lines. I admit that the handling and marketing of fish, and the disposal of fresh fish particularly, is a tricky problem because you are dealing with one of the most perishable foods known, but what other countries have done, we surely are able to do. Our neighbour across the water, England, is able to get our young men who have a thorough knowledge of the sea and of the fishing business by paying them wages which induce them to go across. We should do something to stop that.
The whole coastline of Mayo and of Galway are very badly let down by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department generally, and along that coastline of practically 150 miles, taking into account all the inlets and so on, we have a most expert people, young men particularly, who know every inch of it, who know every trick of the weather and who know the fishing grounds as they know the backs of their hands. We here must share the blame for allowing these to fly from the country because they have no option but to go.
The Parliamentary Secretary is asking this year for only £112,000 or, taking into account Appropriations-in-Aid, a sum of about £140,000. That is a small sum, even taking into account the fact that the board can draw on central funds up to a certain amount for repayable advances. I would much prefer that the Parliamentary Secretary would come in here and tell us exactly what sum was needed because this business of repayable advances has a deterring effect on many of the people along the coast who would engage in this business.
I spoke last year on this Vote about the method adopted of financing boats for these people and what I suggest is that, if there is difficulty in gettingmoney from the Department of Finance for a purpose like this and if repayable advances have to be made, there should be an issue of something like land bonds and thus provide An Bord Iascaigh Mhara with the same means of financing their work as the Land Commission have in relation to the purchase of land for the relief of congestion. That is a suggestion I make for what it is worth but it is something I should like to see the Parliamentary Secretary doing.
We should make a bold effort to stop the flight from our coastline of our intelligent young men who are anxious to develop a livelihood in this business. There is a very good livelihood to be got in deep-sea and inshore fishing, if the material is put at the disposal of these men. A 50 foot boat costs about £6,000 and if it is equipped with radar and other modern tackle, the cost might go up to £7,500. That is totally beyond the capacity of most of those who would like to engage in fishing and some other system of financing the provision of boats should be adopted. The Parliamentary Secretary asks these men for a 10 per cent. deposit, but a deposit of 10 per cent. on a £5,000 or £6,000 boat is beyond the capacity of these men, unless they are to put up their holdings and their homes for sale and sink all the money in the fishing business. We cannot to do that, but asking them for a cash down sum of £500 or £600 is useless. It is a wrong .
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there is any single case along the whole coastline in which people entrusted with a boat defaulted, dishonoured their bond by refusing to pay for the boat or tackle entrusted to them. If we give them £5,000 worth of a boat for a cash down payment of £500, the State is risking £4,500 and we might as well trust them with the lot, because most of them are very honest men. All of them I know are very honest and could be trusted with the lot. If we are to re-establish the fishing tradition and safeguard the knowledge, the skill and the experience which we are in danger of losing we should entrust them withthese boats and put the most modern gear at their disposal. While I do not know how other countries encourage the development of their fisheries, it seems strange to me that our waters can be infested by foreign trawlers which come right inshore and in some cases, as I read recently in the newspapers, actually show aggression against our people inside the three mile limit.
Our Air Corps at the present time, in order to keep pilots and aircraft in fighting trim, must use their planes fairly constantly. I suggest that one use that could be made of these planes would be to employ them on reconnaissance work around our coasts. If foreign trawlers know that an aeroplane of the Irish Republic may just dart out of a cloud, spot them and report their location to some of the corvettes, I think it would have a very deterring effect on illegal fishing around our coasts. That is a suggestion I make to the Parliamentary Secretary for what it is worth. If these planes are using petrol, as they must —they do not get it merely to look at it in a glass case—I cannot see any better way in which it can be used in peace-time than for this purpose. No matter how new our planes are at present, with the advance of science they will become obsolete in two or three years and we might as well turn them to some beneficial use as having them flying around in what must appear to the ordinary person aimless practice flights.
I would again impress upon the Minister the desirability of placing these boats at the disposal of the few fishermen who are left and giving them all the necessary gear. You must trust them. In the case I quoted of a £5,000 boat you are trusting them to the extent of £4,500 and you ask them to put down £500. That may appear a very small sum to some people but it is a terrific sum for poor people along the coast.
It is utterly beyond their power to put it down. I urge on the Parliamentary Secretary that he should trust these people with the value of the whole boat and they will not let himdown. I think the Parliamentary Secretary knows the class of people to whom I am referring and that he will admit that he could trust them with a much larger sum. From the first catch they bring in, they will be establishing a growing claim on the boat and they will care the boat and not run any undue risks with it. In conclusion I want to repeat what I said at the outset, that in a country like this to have to import fish to the value of £250,000, approximately, is a positive shame. We have had a native Government in existence for over 30 years and during that time it was recognised that fisheries and forestry were two powerful means of establishing the people on the land and keeping a good deal of our best blood at home. Yet they are the two branches of Government activity which have been neglected. Even now, at this late hour, if we start in and try to make up some of the leeway we should be doing a good day's work. As a last word, I would say: "Trust the few fishermen we have left". We are already trusting them to the extent of 90 per cent. of the boats. Trust them with the whole lot and they will not let you down.
This debate has followed the routine of former years. The Parliamentary Secretary reads a statement, there is a debate and there the matter ends. Then we are told that we have a Fisheries Department to promote the development of our fisheries. Yet, quite recently when the Parliamentary Secretary attended some function at an hotel here in town he told the audience, and through the audience the country, that we were not a fish-eating people. I always thought it was pretty difficult for people to eat an article they could not procure. Has it occurred to the Parliamentary Secretary, in the case of other articles which the Department is producing, that he has a duty to see whether the people would buy them or consume them?
The statement which he has presented to the House consists mainly of book-keeping items and the gross cost of the book-keeping is £211,000. The summary of the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks at the function wasapparently that it was a dead concern, simply because the Irish were not fish eaters. It is about time that we woke up in this country with regard to this Department and this industry. We are told here, year after year, that there are inexhaustible sources available for development in this direction but the result of all our activities, so far as the Department is concerned, is that the Parliamentary Secretary tells the Irish people that they are not fish eaters. Everybody knows the reason why. It is the utter cock-eyedness of the Department. The Parliamentary Secretary is at the head of a Department producing an article of food and he tells us he has no machinery, or that he is not able to produce any machinery, for the distribution of that article of food to likely consumers.
Did anybody ever hear of such a thing anywhere—an industry or a factory producing an article, throwing it in the stores and then saying that the customers for whom such articles were made would not either buy them or use them? Was there ever a precedent for that? I think that is the position in which the industry stands, that the Department say: "We are interested in sea fishing and in catching fish, but we are not going to sell them because we shall not organise machinery for distribution that will bring them to the doors and the homes of the people for whom they were intended." Is that not the cause of the deadlock? Look at the paltry production of this Department. In 1952, there were 14,000,000 cwt. of wet fish to the value of £34,000,000 landed on the coast of England whilst there were approximately 500,000 cwt. of wet fish landed in this country.
In that connection, we frequently hear references to the necessity for export markets to get dollars and foreign exchange and, secondly, year after year we are bewailing the fate of the population along the sea coasts in these poor areas. In England, where there is scarcely a word ever heard about fisheries, they landed 14,000,000 cwt. of wet fish in 1952 to the value of £34,000,000, and the very areas from which they extracted thosefish are open to us. Yet there is not a town in rural Ireland, practically no urban area, where any day in the week, even on Friday, these people who, we are told, will not, or do not eat fish, can secure a pound of fish for their dinner. There is no doubt about that. Nobody in this House or outside it can contradict that statement.
I know this country as well as any other person living in it and I can say that that statement is quite true. How does the Parliamentary Secretary expect people to buy an article if they cannot get it? Where is the use of having a Department costing £112,000 odd to do a job round the coasts of Ireland that would be done anyway and that was done before the Department or the Parliamentary Secretary ever came into existence, when whole catches are thrown into lorries and dumped in Dublin where there is an excess of fish, to depress the markets there, and permit of any juggling that is necessary to get for those handling it the maximum price. I am not going to deal with the means by which that is done as I have dealt with it before. We have known cases—I gave them here in this House and they were not contradicted—where a surplus of fish was sent out to sea and dumped when there should be some machinery by which it could be sent in lorries or vans to the poorer districts of this city and sold to the poor, say, at cost price. All the fish caught round the shores of Ireland is thrown into lorries at the quays where it is landed and sent to Dublin, and then the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that the Irish people do not eat fish.
I have just spent six weeks in a very rural part of this country, in the townland in which I was born, and I never saw nor could I get as much as one herring in the six weeks. It is a wonder that the Parliamentary Secretary does not look into what is done in other countries and see the ridiculous, futile position that this country occupies so far as this industry is concerned. I want to put an end to the reproach about our people not eating fish. It cannot be got anywhere in therural parts of Ireland. One of the greatest drawbacks for the people of rural Ireland is that they cannot get fish, although they would love to get it.
Some 60 years ago I often saw a cartload of fish taken to one home to be cured. Now a cartload of fish would not come into an entire parish in 12 months. Probably I will be called a shoneen when I say that that was under a foreign Government. There is a boundless field for development when we consider that one country alone extracted £34,000,000 out of the industry in 1952, while we caught a paltry 500,000 cwt. in the same period. Then we have a statement read by the Parliamentary Secretary, lasting half an hour, which contained nothing but book-keeping items, not a word about what he is going to do and how he is going to develop this industry. If the Parliamentary Secretary comes forward with proposals to develop this industry, so far as I am concerned, and so far as I can influence the Party of which I am a member, he will get all the support and all the money he wants to do it. But I want the job tackled. It will not be done by coming in here and reading a rigmarole of figures. That is not going to develop the resources which we have around our coasts. It is not going to land or distribute fish. The first thing is to get an Irish market and supply the Irish people. There should be a way of doing that and not be sending lorries to various parts of the country, throwing the fish into them and dumping them in Dublin and leaving rural Ireland without any fish. Even in the towns around the quays where the fish is landed you cannot get any fish.
How is the fish to be distributed? All those people engaged in the meat trade have insulated vans for sending meat from one part of the country to another. Why should not the Department have such vans for distributing such a very perishable article as fish to the urban areas from which it could be distributed in small vans around the rural parts of the country? You have to go into the business properly or get out of it. You are pretending that you are in it now but you are not. A hawker with a donkey and cart wouldmake a better job of it than the Department. There is no use in deceiving ourselves. We will never get anywhere by the present methods.
Where is the foreign market that we had? Was this House ever told what happened to it? What became of the export trade we had? Why was it lost? Were we ever told why it was lost? We were not told a word about it. Here we are like lobsters and crabs crawling around pretending we have a fishing industry and a Department of Fisheries. To whom did we lose our export trade? Who captured it from us? What country has captured the export fish trade of the world? A country not nearly so favourably situated as we are. Holland has captured the entire world market not only for cured herrings but dried fish. She has captured the Polish market for salted herrings that we had practically exclusively at one time. She has captured the entire cured fish trade in the Mediterranean countries and the export market to the United States. Holland, with a very short coastline, has done all that and we here are blathering about the fishing industry while there are inexhaustible resources for development and nothing being done about them.
We have spent millions of pounds on "cod" schemes in this country. Then we talk about the flight from the land and the disappearance of the Gaeltacht while good employment could be given there if there was anything done about developing our fishing industry. I admit that, if this matter is to be approached in a proper way it will require a big, properly thought-out scheme with capital behind it. A few years ago the inter-Party Government launched a £40,000,000 scheme for land rehabilitation which was to extend over a period of ten years. How many millions of pounds went into the development of our sea resources? We have now to fight for our markets. We have to create a home market and develop it. A sound advertising campaign would do that. But we have lost the export trade and we have to fight against Holland to recapture these markets. Surely that can be done with thefavourable geographical position which we occupy.
Are we going to do anything about it? Are we going to take off our coats, get down to the job and provide the capital and organisation that will do these things? We should first start off by creating a substantial market that is capable of development and capable of providing the poorer people of this country with a cheap article of food which they want and like. Surely this is an opportune time for such a thing having regard to the price of red meat? Would we not confer a great benefit on the poor people of the country? The price of red meat is such to-day that the poor cannot think of purchasing it.
We have canned herrings from Norway, if you please. Fifty years ago if you said there would be canned herrings from Norway people would think you were speaking Greek but it is polite language now. If the Parliamentary Secretary attended a dinner there would probably be Norwegian sardines as hors d'auvresor, perhaps, the tail of a Norwegian herring. In the Gaeltacht and the coastal areas of Ireland there is nothing but emigration.
This criticism may sound severe. It is not meant to be severe. It is meant to be severely honest with ourselves and with the people for whom we could do something. We gladly agreed to put huge sums of money into the land of Ireland, to rehabilitate it. I think it would be an equally good investment to put money into the development of the fishing industry. It is clear that the population of the world is out-racing the production of food. Therefore, even from the commercial point of view, I would submit to the House that it would be a good investment. It will be admitted by everybody in this country, particularly by those who come from the poorer counties, that the people are leaving the Gaeltacht and that here are areas from which the people will disappear completely within the next 50 years. Could we not make an effort to rehabilitate the fishing industry? The means are there. Other countries have utilised these means. That approachis open to us also and we have the same title to it without encroaching on anybody's rights. It is only a question of getting the tools, starting work and getting the machinery behind the organisation to market the goods produced.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary would make an imperishable name for himself were he to launch forth and begin, first of all, to capture and develop the home market. It is there. It is ridiculous to ask the Irish people to buy fish that they never see to purchase. In that connection the Parliamentary Secretary should see that there is an average substantial flat rate fixed for the price of fish so that the housewife would know from week to week at approximately what price she could get a pound of a certain class of fish. There should be an end to allegations of racketeering. A pound of fish costs ? one day and the next it costs 4/6. You are never going to develop anything by that sort of business.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that as soon as he proceeds on those lines—and he must proceed along those lines if he is going to do anything—he should get insulated vans and distribute this fish throughout the country in good condition. Of course, there should be an end to the use of the square wooden boxes in the transport of fish. There are plenty of aluminium boxes. If such are not available they could be made to order. They are easily washed. In this way we would be assured that the fish would be delivered in perfect condition to the people in every corner of the country. There is no use talking about buying or servicing boats or giving loans if they are only to get a lot of fish thrown on the market in Dublin. It is pure eye-wash and I would not waste time talking about it.
There are a couple of items in the Book of Estimates about which I should like some information. Could the Parliamentary Secretary give me some information in regard to sub-head G—Grant-in-Aid of administration and development of Sea FisheriesAssociation; repayable advances to Sea Fisheries Association for boats and gear; and repayable advances to Sea Fisheries Association for general development? Last year under this sub-head sums of £9,775, £15,000 and £23,750 were provided. Sub-head F (5) deals with compensation under Sections 35 and 67 of the Fisheries Act, 1939 (No. 17 of 1939); for payments, including ex gratiagrants, under the Freshwater Fisheries (Prohibition of Netting) Act, 1951 (No. 21 of 1951), and for miscellaneous expenses. The amount is £48,000. Were thoseex gratiagrants to people who had been fishing on the freshwater parts of rivers and who are now prohibited from fishing therein?
Yes. The Deputy is substantially correct.
That is about all I have got to say.
Is the Deputy moving to refer the Vote back?
Yes.
There is a motion down to refer it back.
It is in the name of Deputy O'Donnell, but he is not here to move it.
I should like to start on a somewhat more optimistic note that the previous speaker. First of all, I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the efforts he is making to develop the fishing industry in this country. The past year has shown that we have been going in the right direction in so far as we have been able to record an increase of 16,000 cwt. in the amount of fish landed over the previous year. That may not be a remarkable increase but it is remarkable in so far as it is an increase of 16,000 cwt. and it is at least worth mentioning. It shows that the efforts which the Parliamentary Secretary is making to revive an industry which was on the decline are meeting with a certain amount of success.
It is also, of course, a good thing to note that the amount secured for fish generally over the past year shows an upward trend on that received for the previous year. Ever since I remember on this Estimate in this House, long before I was a member of the House, the same speeches were trotted out and the same criticisms levelled at the Parliamentary Secretary each year without any definite plans or suggestions being put forward as to how this national industry could be more fully developed. Although midland Deputies do not take much interest in the fishing industry, they all agree that it is one of the most important industries in this country. The previous speaker contented himself with general criticism and suggested, to use his own words, that a "big thought-out scheme" would have to be launched.
I do not for a moment envy the job which the Parliamentary Secretary has to do in order to develop the fishing industry. His task is not by any means an easy one, as his predecessor in office, Deputy Dillon, has said on many an occasion. I remember the words he used when speaking with regard to the fishing industry. He said we were not a fish-eating people. He elaborated on that by pointing out that many people, including himself, did not like fish at all. I am afraid the statement then made by Deputy Dillon is very largely true. That is not due, as the previous speaker has said, to the fact that the people do not get fish. I am afraid that many look on Friday as being the only day on which we should eat fish. For that reason, the market is easily glutted.
In my opinion, the present Parliamentary Secretary is quite capable of dealing with that situation. Perhaps he is the most suitable Parliamentary Secretary that has yet undertaken the job. He is well aware of the difficulties which confront him in the task that he is now undertaking. He knows of all the difficulties that surround the problem of developing the fishing industry; that, in order to develop the market and to make the country, if you like, fish-eating, there must be a guarantee of continuity of supplies. We must be able to give the peoplefish regularly. In order to do that, we must be able to land more fish. If you are to get the fishermen to land more fish, you must be able to guarantee that there will be a market for it.
Efforts are being made to overcome the vicious circle which seems to operate against the development of this industry. There are difficulties to be met with. I am satisfied that efforts are now being made in the right direction to overcome those difficulties. The present Parliamentary Secretary is taking steps to ensure that, as far as possible, there will be a continuity in the supply of fish for the home market. One way of bringing about that situation is to have more cold storage facilities made available. Therefore, if there was a glut of fish on the market, it could be put in cold storage and made available for the people at times when supplies were scarce.
The fish meal industry can deal with surplus fish and thereby ensure that prices will not be allowed to drop to too low a level. Smoking plants, and any kippering that can be done, will be a further means of dealing with supplies when supplies are plentiful. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his introductory statement to-night, indicated that steps on these lines are being taken. In fact, such measures have been taken and a good deal of money is being earmarked for these purposes. We have no doubt that measures of the kind will produce the desired results.
It is important that the home market should be developed. Statements of that kind have been made by Deputies as long as this Estimate has been coming before the house. They have been advocating the distribution of fish to the provincial towns and suggesting that it would lead to an improvement in the industry. We are all agreed that having a market centralised in Dublin is not the ideal thing—fish being brought from Killybegs through the midland towns to-night, sold on the Dublin market to-morrow morning and redistributed back to the provincial towns the following day. We all agree that that adds to the cost to the consumer. It means that many people donot succeed in getting a supply of fish at all.
Suggestions have been made here that fish shops should be set up in the provincial towns by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, and should get their supplies by means of a transport system operated from the various depôts which handle the fish. That is not just quite as simple a matter as it may appear. It may be quite easy for people who make sausages to distribute their supplies to the country and ensure regularity of supply. They may be able to ensure weekly or daily supplies to the same shops so that customers will be able to have regular supplies. I am afraid that, when dealing with fish supplies, the same regularity cannot always be guaranteed. The lorries owned by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara may go out one day with supplies to the provincial towns, but I am afraid cannot give a guarantee to the shops that they will be able to deliver supplies on the same day next week. Hence, there will be the difficulty of overcoming this question of irregularity in supplies. In my opinion the only way of overcoming that is by ensuring that the necessary number of people are put into the fishing industry. I think if that were done we would be able to ensure continuity of supplies and would be able to overcome this vicious circle which appears to confront us so far as this industry is concerned.
It will be difficult to put more people into the industry unless you can assure them beforehand that it will be possible for them to secure boats capable of fishing in the deep waters. The Parliamentary Secretary is making a further attempt to overcome that difficulty which concerns this question of continuity of supplies. An inshore fishing fleet may operate when circumstances are favourable and when shoals are plentiful, but we know that the weather conditions will often preclude them from going to sea at all, while on no occasion can they venture out into the deep. By procuring a few of the larger boats the Parliamentary Secretary is attempting to bridge that gap by having boats which can go to sea in all weathers. By thatmeans, continuity in supply can, to some extent, be ensured, thereby cutting out imports of fish to this country. I think that is the reasonable, sensible way in which to tackle the problem.
I was surprised to see that a number of Deputies were prepared to criticise the action of the Parliamentary Secretary in his effort to procure boats and to enable him to bridge the gap to which I have referred. I am hoping that success will attend his efforts. It should eventually prove to be a boon to the inshore fishermen in so far as it will tend to develop a home market for our fish and to maintain continuity in supplies.
I would suggest that the primary interest which any Deputy from the sea coast must have in speaking on this Estimate is to exhort the Parliamentary Secretary to see that more people are employed in the industry at a profitable rate. If we are to succeed in that we must, I think, improve considerably the facilities which we place at the disposal of those people so as to encourage them to engage in the industry. I am afraid that the younger people of to-day are not prepared to go out to sea in the old type of inshore boats which were used by their fathers and grandfathers in pursuit of what was, and is, a dangerous and precarious livelihood. They are not prepared to take the same risks—not in the same numbers certainly as those in the past did. If they are to be induced to carry on the industry better boats must be provided and better landing facilities for those boats.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the 50-foot boat known as the half-decker which has become so popular and he pointed out that ten of these were delivered last year. I am not surprised the number is not bigger although I would like to know the number of applications which were actually received for boats of this type. I am sure it would be nearer 1,000 than ten. As Deputy McMenamin rightly pointed out the fishermen generally, both young and old, who are anxious to own such boats and who wish to take part in fishing in comfort and with greater hope for the futurehave not the necessary deposits to put down in order to own one of these boats which An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are so generously placing at their disposal. Ten per cent. seems low but 10 per cent. of £6,000 is more than the average fisherman can get his hands on and very often it is only when a number of fishermen secure the deposit that is asked for that it is possible to have a boat brought into an area. Many of those who would be most anxious to have facilities of that type to enable them to carry on the fishing industry satisfactorily must remain without any such facilities until some other provision is made.
I know perfectly well that those who in the past have supplied gear and boats to fishermen have had sorrowful enough experience in so far as many of the amounts are still outstanding. However, nowadays the organisation which is in charge of fishing is operating in entirely different circumstances from those in which the old Congested Districts Board operated in their day.
An Bord Iascaigh Mhara has in almost every worthwhile fishing port in Ireland an organisation of their own and through these agencies they are capable of knowing who is a worthwhile fisherman, who are the hard-working and honest fishermen and who are not. Fishermen are like every other section of the community; they include every type of people. It is wrong for any Deputy to say that they are a lot of angels; they are not, any more than any other section of the community, but these agents which the organisation of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara has in every worthwhile port in the country are quite capable of putting a finger on the men who are efficient at their work. For that reason it should not be necessary to insist that these high deposits be adhered to. They should be enabled to issue boats to the various people in the district who, in their opinion, would be successful with them and make a decent livelihood for themselves and the crews. Furthermore, not merely can they ascertain for themselves the people worthy of getting such boats but they could supervise the operation of the boats after they had been passedover to the fishermen and by that means ensure that everything possible is being done to make the fullest use of the boats and to have the instalments paid up so that the fishermen will eventually come to own them in the shortest possible time. Any good fisherman will be most anxious to work to the extent that he will in the shortest possible time become the owner of his craft.
I would like to refer to the question of harbours which is agitating the minds of so many people interested in the fishing industry around the coast. Some time ago the Parliamentary Secretary made a very careful personal survey of the western coast from Donegal right around to Kerry and also of the eastern coast. I think he would be the first to agree that many of those little landing-places, some of them constructed years ago by the old Congested Districts Board, may not have been properly placed in the first instance, but in any event are not now fit to serve the local needs. The result is that many fishing villages are operating without any particular landing-place having been erected to meet their needs at all.
I know a fishing village in Donegal where the boats are being landed on the beach as far back as I can remember without any slips, without any trace whatever of landing facilities. No doubt landing facilities might be available a mile or two further away but the fishermen know themselves where the most suitable place is to have their catches landed. No matter what the marine engineer sent around the coast may say, the place habitually used is the place most suitable for providing landing facilities.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will ensure that a special drive is made towards the expenditure of more money on suitable places of this type. I do not expect he can have one constructed in every nook and creek around the coast where every person would like to have a landing place but he should at least ensure that no fishing village will be left without reasonably safe facilities which can be used by them in moderate weather. As a rule the inshore fishermen who usesmall craft do not put to sea in stormy weather and the facilities required are not usually of a very expensive type.
I would like at this stage to congratulate another Minister who has assisted the industry, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who had been on many occasions prevailed on to have fish prices announced in the morning news. Just before the Easter Recess this year I gave notice of a question asking the Minister if he would now consider having that done. I was pleased to note that when the Dáil reassembled after Easter, on the same day on which the question was answered, the news was first announced. I would appeal at this stage to those concerned through the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that the most accurate possible prices are given. Sometimes prices announced are those prevailing in the early portion of the morning whereas later prices are sometimes not given; very often the later prices vary considerably from those prevailing early in the morning. I would like a good cross-section of the prices ruling to be given in each particular news bulletin.
In regard to inland fisheries more attention should be paid to them, attention of the type which has been directed already towards some of our lakes in Donegal.
We think that there is a certain potential wealth there which could be developed and which would be of considerable help to the tourist industry in a county such as ours, or in any county, for that matter. The few experiments which have been carried out with regard to lakes in the county have indicated that it would be well worth while developing further along those lines.
I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the significant increase in the amount of fish landed and to hope that that is the beginning of an upward trend. If we have sufficient cold storage facilities and fish meal plants—a second one is now mooted—kippering stations, smoking stations, we can at least ensure that the market will not be as easily glutted as it has been in the past, and thatwhen supplies are plentiful the price will not drop to the ridiculous figure to which it drops at times.
There is no Minister in any Government to whom so many suggestions are put forward as there are to the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of fisheries. It is rather common to find in every fishing port of any significance a few know-all gentlemen who, while they do not fish themselves, can tell everyone else how it should be done, or should not be done, how prosperity can flow from it. They spend their lives talking and telling everyone how the work should be done.
That phenomenon is not peculiar to fishing.
The main person concerned in fishing is the fisherman, and our primary duty is to ensure that with less effort more people can engage in the fishing industry with a greater profit. There are more people engaged in it than the fishermen; there are various people indirectly connected with it, in distribution and in other ways, but those people who are primarily concerned are those who live on the coast and who have to go to sea to catch the fish. While we can make various suggestions here as to how things should be done, the only thing we can do for the fisherman is to ensure that his lot is a better one and a more profitable one, that he has at his disposal a better boat and that it is more easily procurable and then that when the fish is landed there will be a market for it.
That is not an easy task. It has been tackled by various people since we first got a native Government. While it is not a simple task, if we are to get more people into the industry we must ensure by some means continuity in the supply of fish. That can be done only by the means now being adopted by the present Parliamentary Secretary, of having more fish meal plant, more cold storage, more ice producing plant and more effort to ensure that when there is a glut the price will not drop to an uneconomic level. By that means we can supply the market when fresh supplies are not being landed and so provide continuity, which is the only means by which we can succeed eventually in selling more fish in areaswhere it is not now available. It is only by regular supplies and continuity that we can achieve that.
I think the people of Killybegs, where the fishing industry is the main industry, practically the only one, have a lot to be thankful for in so far as a good deal of money has been expended on the improvement of facilities there. The sum of £65,000 has been spent on the erection of one of the best harbours on our coast; £24,000 has been spent on the erection of a fish meal plant and on quick-freeze storing and a further £3,000 is to be expended to complete the work. While many people will say that the present Parliamentary Secretary is not doing everything that he should do in order to assist these people, in all fairness to him and to the Government I say they are making an honest effort to put the fishing industry on its feet around our coast. It is only with the loyal co-operation of every person genuinely interested in the industry that those efforts will eventually succeed and bear fruit to the extent that I hope every Deputy in this House would like they would.
It was amusing to hear Deputy Brennan congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary and his Government on the work that was done for the fishing industry during the past 12 months. He based his congratulation on the fact that an increased weight of fish had been landed, but he did not compare the weight landed during the present year with the weight landed in any previous calm year suitable for boats going to sea.
This Estimate was remarkable for the absence of panic proposals and panic measures. In fact, it showed a reduction of £99,000. That shows the attitude of the Government towards the industry. If they were interested in expanding it, as we have heard in the debate, they would not be reducing the expenditure by nearly £100,000 in this particular Department, while at the same time we have proposals for the expenditure of £5,000,000 on demolishing Dublin Castle and rebuilding it. I heard Deputy Brennan say the industry was on the declineuntil the present Parliamentary Secretary took over, but I think that if anyone ever did anything for this industry in the last 20 years it was Deputy Dillon—the same as he did for agriculture. He at least created activity there and brought it to life. One great thing which he did was the preparation of the 1950 Fisheries Bill, which the present Parliamentary Secretary and his Fianna Fáil Government threw into the waste-paper basket as soon as they came into office and put in its place the present legislation.
We can ask the inshore fishermen themselves and those others engaged in the industry whether the present legislation or the 1950 legislation would have been the more suitable to this country. I heard during the debate that it is proposed this year to make £75,000 available for boats and gear for the inshore fishermen and that it is intended to provide a greater amount for deep sea trawlers. When we compare the price of a boat for an inshore fisherman, in which several families will be involved, with the cost of a deep sea trawler, we can see that the present Government is not interested in putting proper gear into the hands of the inshore men. Instead, they are going to spend a greater amount of money on a couple of trawlers.
This brings me to another point. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the deep-sea trawlers. There was a good deal of debate here last year when this matter arose. It was contended by many that the inshore fishermen were going to suffer by the introduction of these deep-sea trawlers. We did not get a report, on this Estimate, of the work done by these trawlers. We did not hear, for instance, from the Parliamentary Secretary whether these trawlers brought in a satisfactory quantity of fish in comparison with trawlers of similar make being used by other nations and in relation to the staff employed. We did not hear from him whether they are able to make fish available more cheaply than the existing system. We should at least have some kind of report available here concerning thesedeep-sea trawlers which were regarded as an experiment and promised as a boon to the nation when this matter came up last year. I think the public should be told what the results are from these trawlers and whether, in fact, the use of them is justified in relation to the quantity of fish they have brought ashore and in relation to the prices at which such fish could be sold.
We have heard talk in this debate about the distribution of fish, and it has been said that the industry is really developing on these lines of distribution, but the first question I would ask is, how is it managed that we can distribute nearly £250,000 worth of imported fish? Surely we could land those fish ourselves, treat and distribute them, just as imported fish is being distributed at the present time? It should not present any great difficulty. We imported, for instance, £126,000 worth of smoked fish last year. Surely we could arrange to have a curing plant established here in order to provide smoked fish and send it through the same channels of distribution which this imported fish is going through? Similarly, we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary that £99,000 worth of fresh fish was imported into this country and distributed. Surely the fresh fish landed at our own ports could be distributed just as easily as that imported fresh fish? The gap is there. There is no use in saying that the market is being over-supplied. It is not.
Is the Deputy not aware that imports are only allowed when home fish are not available on the home market?
I am aware of that but what I am arguing is that this industry could be expanded rapidly with profit so that this demand could be met. The gap is there, and as Deputy Brennan has mentioned, in order to fill that gap we imported nearly £100,000 worth of fresh fish and £126,000 worth of smoked fish. That fish is coming into this country and being distributed along the lines where we could arrange to have ourown native fishermen distributing our own fish. Take even the smoked fish —surely we could set up plants in this country to enable fish to be smoked. People have put forward the argument that smoked fish is chosen in the country because it keeps. It is more satisfactory for the distributors and shopkeepers because they are certain they will not have the losses they might have in connection with fresh fish. Realising that preference is there from the purely profit motives, we ought to set about setting up these curing plants or smoking centres which would enable us to treat fish and distribute it instead of importing it. There is a very small quantity of fish being smoked and cured in this country but I feel we could easily make finance available in connection with this Estimate for the purpose of having such smoking and curing centres available.
Reference is often made here to the fact that foreign vessels come inside our territorial limits and rob from the sea bed much of the fish which our own men ought to be allowed to catch and to the fact that we should have a better system of guarding our territorial waters and preserving them for our inshore fishermen. Many different types of suggestions have been made but I believe that the development of the radio telephone and radar would perhaps be the best one in the long run.
Apparently, according to this Estimate, it is intended to proceed with the activity of ice-making for the purpose of preserving fish at the larger centres and, in addition, at many of the smaller centres which are fed only by the inshore boats. That is a welcome development. It will probably result in greater quantities of fresh fish in good condition being made available to the public. It was not mentioned where this ice-making plant is going to be established, but I would like to suggest that it be established down the country. We very often refer to decentralisation when this question of establishing industries arises, and I think when there is a new development, especially a development of this nature, that we ought, if at all possible, locate it outside the mostpopulous areas such as Dublin City. From the wording of the Estimate I was inclined to conclude that it is in fact proposed to have this ice-making plant around Dublin, and I hope that if initial plans are not made that arrangements will be made instead to have that ice-making plant set up down the country in order to distribute our employment and prevent emigration.
I believe that the inshore fishermen are disappointed with the manner in which the present system of fish marketing is being operated. Even this year we have had examples of the inshore fishermen being obliged to dump a large quantity of fish probably because alternative arrangements did not exist for disposing of that fish and making use of it. The result is that the time of these men was wasted and their families did not get the profit that should be expected from the normal activity of fishing by these inshore boats. I believe that we should face the problem here in a progressive way. We should realise that this being an island country, if we do equip our men with proper boats and gear they will be able to provide at least the full requirements of our own people. I believe we can proceed on that basis, and we should make a proper effort to bring about that position as quickly as possible.
Deputy McMenamin adverted to the fact that Holland, a country with a very short coast line, has succeeded in capturing the world fish markets. We are an island country surrounded by fertile fishing waters yet we have been unable, indeed we have not made any attempt, to supply our own needs. I am not satisfied with the work done during the past year in this particular sphere of our economy; if sufficient money is invested in this industry we will reap a lucrative return. Money has been made available for panic relief schemes. Here we have a reduction of nearly £100,000 in an industry where the return for money invested would be a good one and in which productive employment could be provided for our people.
One problem in connection with the marketing of fish is the dumping of fish by foreign trawlers. Large quantitiesof dumped fish disorganise the entire market. There is no method of dealing with such fish either by curing it or treating it and it is thrown on the ordinary domestic market at a time when our inshore fishermen are providing the full requirements of that market. That dumping of fish is a most pernicious practice and the Department should take steps to put an end to it. Our inshore fishermen are not getting a fair deal from the present Government. They are a most important section of the fishing industry but they are not treated as such. We have an example of that in the fact that more money is being made available this year for the purchase of deep sea trawlers than is being made available for the purchase of boats and gear for the thousands of inshore fishermen around our coasts.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to make some attempt next year to provide the necessary capital to put the inshore fishing industry on a proper basis. If sufficient finance is made available we must reach the situation eventually wherein we will be able to provide our full requirements on the home market and at the same time a livelihood for many of our people. Those of our people who have a long tradition of fishing behind them would be prepared to engage in this industry provided they are adequately financed and properly equipped. At the moment it is difficult for some of them to compete even with their own neighbours who have better boats and more up-to-date equipment. We should continue the policy implemented by the inter-Party Government of providing boats for our inshore fishermen as quickly as possible. An efficient inshore fleet will bring a better return than will all the deep-sea trawlers.
On this Estimate, on last year's Estimate and probably on many others before that the emphasis has been on problems. Different speakers have adverted to this problem, that problem and the other problem. I believe there is only one problem; that is, the putting into the fishing industry of sufficient capital. That is all that is needed. Large sumsof money have been expended on the development of other industries. That cannot be said of the fishing industry despite the fact that it is one of our most important industries since the raw material lies all around our own coast. We have the skilled personnel, we have the markets. We have the prospect of an export market. All these should enable us to build up a first-class fishing industry. All that is required is the necessary capital.
Lack of capital is the primary problem. The other problems mentioned are of a minor nature. They are problems that will solve themselves once we start putting money into the industry. If facilities were made available many of our young men would be prepared to engage in the fishing industry. We must make available to these young men the best equipment that is available and put at their disposal the most scientific and modern methods of building up a first-class fishing industry. Agricultural methods have changed considerably over the past 20 years. Farmers to-day are availing of all that science can offer them and all that the Department of Agriculture is putting at their disposal by way of services, instructions and advice. Similar facilities must be put at the disposal of our fishermen. Better boats and better landing facilities must be made available. It may be said that there are already slips in existence but the young people of to-day are not satisfied with the second best particularly when they are aware of the improvements that have been made in other industries. If the obsolete methods of 20 years ago still obtained in agriculture the young people to-day would not take up agriculture as a career. The same is true of fishing.
The young people of to-day cannot be expected to adopt the methods used by their fathers and it is not fair to ask them to do it. That is what we are asking them to do if we keep trucking with this question in the present manner. The sums of money allotted every year are not sufficient and would not be sufficient if multiplied a hundred times. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretaryto get his hands on a couple of million pounds and to use it in building piers, supplying boats and gear and organising classes where young fishermen would receive instruction in modern methods. That would solve many of the other problems which have been mooted.
I know there are problems of marketing. Once we get a regular all year round supply of fish, those problems will disappear. They exist because the supply of fish is irregular and, naturally, the markets must be irregular. The housewife who grumbles that one week she can get fish and the next week she cannot get it has a grievance but it is not the fault of the marketing system; it is the fault of the landing system. It is because our fishing fleets are not sufficiently modern and not enough money is available to improve and to perfect the methods used.
I agree also that more money should be spent on the erection of canning factories and storage facilities. Canning and cold storage of fish will not be undertaken by private enterprise; it is too big. It is something that the Government or the Department should tackle.
Another important point is the establishment in technical schools of classes where various methods of cooking fish could be studied. In that way the dislike people may have of fish would disappear. If people are served with fish cooked in only one way week in and week out, it becomes distasteful to them. Modern methods of cooking should be taught in technical schools.
Deputy Rooney has mentioned the hardy annual which crops up on every debate of this kind, the encroachment on our fishing grounds by foreign trawlers. Talk will not keep them away. It is true that much damage is done to the fishing beds by foreign trawlers. In some of the small fishing centres along the coast the older people say that the fish are not there. That is only a half-truth. It is true to the extent that the dragnets used by foreign trawlers injure the fishing beds and the spawning beds. Very severe measures should be taken topreserve the three-mile limit. It is only three miles so far. Steps should be taken to prevent foreign trawlers from encroaching on that territory. If they do encroach, steps should be taken to see that they will not get away with a £5 fine, because five minutes fishing would pay off the fine.
While I am on the question of trawlers I would point out that the Northern coast of Donegal is neglected as far as control is concerned. It is not altogether neglected but the geographical situation is such that breaches of the regulations by foreign trawlers occur every day of the week and very little is done about it.
I have a complaint to make in that respect. Recently a patrol vessel, the Cliona,visited the port of Glengad. No trawlers were in sight. In an interview with a paper which circulates in this country one of the officers is reported to have said that the fishermen of that port must be lazy because he saw neither foreign trawlers nor fishermen. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he has seen that report and if any action has been taken. The Parliamentary Secretary, who has visited Glengad, knows well that the fishermen there are up against many difficulties from the sea and from the landing place. They hope and expect that the landing facilities will be improved very soon. I can asure the House that the allegation in that report is not true. It so happens that at that particular season any fishing done there is done at night. It is most unfortunate that such a report should have been issued as coming from an officer of our patrol boats.
Like Deputy Brennan, I am glad to see that attention is being paid to the development of inland fishing, the improvement of lake and river fishing, for the reason that such fishing is an attraction to tourists and to a type of tourist who will spend money in this country. Fishing tourists, as a class, should be encouraged to come here. The development of our trout rivers and lakes, and salmon rivers and lakes will attract increasing numbers of such tourists. I think the Parliamentary Secretary's account of theyear's work is encouraging, and it is encouraging to note that a keen effort is being put into all facets of the fishing industry, but more than effort is required, and I would again stress that money, and more money, is required.
As the last speaker has mentioned, capital is essential. We all appreciate that. While there are a few points on this Estimate, I think it is only right that we should concentrate on the fact that, first of all, we are at this disadvantage, that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his introductory speech on this very important Estimate, naturally laid stress on the period of time that is nearly 12 months out of date, so that now the figures given to us are for the year 1952, and it is rather awkward for us when we consider we are now practically at the end of 1953. But even so, as other speakers mentioned, I think it is very important for us to question the whole policy regarding fishing in this country, when we have to bear in mind the fact that in the year 1952 we had to import, between fresh and smoked fish, a total of £225,000, or £250,000. That does justify some speakers in this House who, year after year, irrespective of what Party may be in Government, express criticism of the policy regarding fisheries in this country.
I believe at the outset that we are again entitled to say that as long as the very important branch of fisheries is only a sort of a godchild of another Department then it just means that it is going to continue to be treated as something of an inferior quality as against some of the other branches of industry in this country. Speakers have concentrated, perhaps, on either the question of the inshore fishermen or the question of imports of fish. I believe that if we are going to approach this very important subject as we should we must take into consideration the fact that we cannot be prepared to adopt an approach which is going to be sectional in one respect. We cannot be prepared to say we are completely for the policy which is going to guarantee to the inshore fishermen all that he requires himself. On the other hand, we cannot say that we mustadopt a policy which is going to cut out the inshore fishermen. As long as we have to admit that we in this small country, this island, have to continuously import fish, then it means that we must be prepared first of all to introduce a system whereby the consumer is going to be in a position of being able to buy fish at reasonable prices, which is very important to the housewife, and at the same time we must also take into consideration and be prepared to secure in the system of fishing that we want to introduce in this country not a form of seasonal employment for inshore fishermen but a form of employment which could and should give them a guaranteed form of employment at what is vitally important to them, a guaranteed wage.
Reference has been made to agriculture, but we all know that even in that great industry the problem of profit for the producer and guaranteed wages and guaranteed employment for the workers were of vital importance. In so far as can be compatible with the overall outlook that we must be prepared to accept regarding fishing, we must be prepared to see not only that the inshore fisherman is protected but also that the consumer is going to be provided with the supplies required. I believe that while it has been said in this House this evening that demand is not as high in this country for fish as it could and should be, the demand would be trebled if prices were comparable with the amount of money available to the people who are in a position at times to buy fish but not at the exorbitant prices demanded.
Because of that, I know that the view of the Labour Party is such that if we are to make a success of this very important branch dealing with fisheries we must first of all be prepared to say that a Minister must be in charge of this important industry, and that in that industry we must be prepared to go so far even as to set up a State or a semi-State organisation which within its fold will give representation to the fishermen and also representation to the consumer. I honestly believe myself that it is useless for us to set up any kind of board—we had the old board that was in operation for so many years and the new board that is roughly 12 months operating—whether the name is in Irish or in English, unless alone we have an organisation such that within its fold are included the various interests connected with the fishing industry. It is not a matter of the capital we may make available for fishing, because I believe we would be starting at the wrong end even in providing that capital unless the organisation is a worthwhile one. Otherwise, fishing cannot prosper.
Let us at the outset, for instance, realise the position of the inshore fisherman as some of us, at any rate, know in the maritime areas around the South and South-West coasts. Nobody can say that he meets fishermen who are, leaving out the word wealthy, even having a fair income. We know that their vocation in life is of necessity most hard and strenuous on them. We know that they are exposed to elements of nature that other sections of the community know little or nothing about, but we also know that because of the lack of supplies coming to hand many periods of the year are such that the fisherman is very often in some areas actually in the position of looking for home assistance. The alternative to that is quite obvious to everyone to see, and members from the maritime areas are fully conversant with the facts. They know that the younger men are turning their backs on the old vocation.
They are either entering into the services of other countries in such capacity or else looking for work in a different type of employment completely. Nobody can deny the fact that we have the men, because of their high traditions for generations before them. We have the men who undoubtedly can meet the demand for any amount of employment we may offer if conditions are made suitable for them, and the only view that I can see worth expressing is that in order to make conditions available which will give guaranteed employment at a fair, decent, Christian standard of living to the inshore fishermenis a system of State or semi-State organisation.
We also realise, as we must realise, that the present position tends to encourage a system whereby supplies will never meet demand. We are all human, and we must be prepared to accept the views of those people in the industry in so far as their difficulty all the years back was that if supplies ever got up to demand their worry would be prices. We have had many occasions to note, unfortunately, where inshore fishermen after a period of fishing coming back with a good catch were then at the mercy of others who, because of their knowledge of market prices or otherwise, had the possibility of offering to fishermen prices which were completely unsatisfactory. Because of that tendency we were faced with the problem of the inshore fishermen never being anxious to put on the market sufficient quantities of fish to meet the general demand that could be available.
Again, in connection with the demand for fish, I believe we are entitled to draw attention to the great possibilities in inland areas where fish is practically unknown except on a very, very odd Friday of a few weeks in the year. Coupled with that, I should also like to draw attention to what I believe is true, and that is, that, in institutions controlled by State Departments themselves and controlled by local authorities, no encouragement has ever been offered to utilise or to buy up on the markets supplies of fish. How can we ask the housewife to buy fish at a price which she may consider she cannot reach when, at the same time, not only are we not advising but we are not insisting on local authorities and State Departments adopting a system whereby more fish can be bought? If such were the case, imports might have to be of a higher nature. Should that happen, then, in itself, it would give us more justification to demand a system or organisation which would meet the vast majority of the demand for fish in our country.
The Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned in his speech the importanceof trout fishing. We have read in the newspapers about the possibility of encouraging tourists to visit this country for fishing, be it trout, salmon or coarse fishing. That is admirable, to a point. Before we come to the stage of saying that this country is a sportman's or a fisherman's paradise, we must be prepared to say that, first of all, we will put our own house in order, not for the visiting fisherman but for the housewives of this country, and particularly for the men who are depending on this great industry for a living. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, we have never come to the point of even striking out on that very important project regarding fisheries.
As an ordinary member of this House, I do not know the views of the Department regarding fisheries. My own honest opinion is that, in this very important fisheries branch, we have officials and experts who can advise and in their own way help any Parliamentary Secretary—and in my opinion we should have a Minister for Fisheries. Unless, however, a Minister gets the backing of his Government and is able to put before the public and before this House a policy whereby we can strike out on a real system of guaranteed wages and prices, and also a guaranteed supply for consumers, it is a waste of time.
I am sorry to say that from what I can see on this Estimate—irrespective of whether we have sufficient capital or not—we seem to be content to leave fishing in the hands of what we might term "private enterprise". Even though we may have set up boards, the policy gives me the impression that it is nothing other than as if a few private individuals set up an organisation of their own, independent of Government, and tried to provide for themselves an adequate profit from fishing.
Other Deputies have mentioned the problem of the three-mile-limit. On different occasions, Deputies have put down questions inquiring about the possibility of the extension of the three-mile-limit. When I heard the Parliamentary Secretary speak this afternoon, I hoped that we were at last making some progress in regardto this problem. If other countries can insist on increasing the three-mile-limit for their fishing, then, if we are sincere and genuine about trying to get a policy of improved fishing rights in this country, we should claim, as other countries have done internationally, an extension of the three-mile-limit.
Some Deputies also mentioned the necessity for utilising aircraft and corvettes in this matter of the three-mile-limit. Last year and the year previous to that, and even in years when the inter-Party Government was in office, I remember saying, as I say now—and I believe and I know that the members of the Labour Party hold the same view—that it would be good if we could utilise the services of those employed in our naval service to help to protect our fishing industry. We cannot believe that we must have these services—independent of fisheries—for no purpose other than war or protection against war. I say good luck to our young men who are joining our naval service. I have encouraged young men in my area to join that service. Knowing the type of young men entering this service, I believe that they could be utilised greatly to the benefit of this small State by helping and co-operating more fully with our own fishermen. Undoubtedly, the problem is to keep foreign trawlers outside the three-mile-limit. We all know that problem. It has not happened overnight. It did not arise in the past few years: it has been there down through the years. If we have a stronger way of dealing with these foreign trawlers than expecting the unfortunate inshore fisherman to do something about it, then I believe we should succeed much more quickly if we put it into operation. Very often the poor unfortunate inshore fisherman is expected to get a catch in a boat so unseaworthy that people in inland areas could have no conception of the difficulties he has to face. I am not speaking now of the boats that people are lucky enough to get from the Department. We must not forget, however, that many other fishermen are striving to make a livingunder conditions which are totally unsatisfactory, and in my opinion it is inhuman to expect these men to continue under those conditions. Let us, then, give them the co-operation of our naval service.
Unfortunately, as a result of our present policy, young men who undoubtedly would be an asset to the country and who, under the Constitution of this State are entitled to a living in their own country—and that living is there for them if only we are prepared to put into operation a scheme in connection with fisheries that will give them the employment they seek—are forced to emigrate. If we refuse to give them employment here, why should we question these men who leave their own country? In the Kinsale and other noted areas connected with the fishing industry—noted not just for the past few years but for centuries—I know that things have reached a situation whereby a young man turns his back on his own country rather than go into this industry from which he knows he will get no return.
These men have in the past been at the mercy of people who at times took advantage of them in buying their catches, and they have also been in the position of having to return empty-handed from the fishing grounds. These people leaving the country are a loss to the State and their departure is a loss for the people in the inland areas who are crying out for fish supplies. I do not believe that, as some Deputies said, we are not a fish-eating people. I believe that the reason why fish is not consumed in greater quantities is, first, that the price is prohibitive in many instances and, secondly, that there is a failure to provide a proper marketing system whereby people will be assured of supplies.
In many of these inland areas, while the people never got the habit of using fresh fish, in many a home, there could be seen a supply of what was commonly known as stock fish, and at present even the price of that commodity is such that the people cannot buy what they are anxious to buy. If prices are such that the people are unable to buy, I believe it is the result of the failure of State policy in relation to putting on the market supplies of fish which undoubtedlycould and would be bought if they were made available at fair prices.
I appreciate fully what the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to do in relation to this important industry, but I believe that his hands, like the hands of any Parliamentary Secretary dealing with it, are bound to be tied while the industry is not regarded as it should be. Are we to admit that while other countries can make this important industry prosper, we are satisfied, not alone to let it remain stagnant but, through the neglect of Government policy, irrespective of what Government may be in office, to be retarded? Nobody can deny that, being worried as we are about emigration, we can provide employment in maritime areas for the young men who are leaving the country, but we cannot provide it under the present policy regarding fisheries. If we are prepared to adopt a policy of breaking completely with the past, a policy of forgetting the vested interests of any one section, a policy designed to safeguard the rights of those employed in the industry, to give them a guaranteed wage and the guaranteed employment which we can give them, and designed, at the same time, to assist the people in their demand for greater fish supplies, then, and then only, will we put fishing in the position to which it is entitled.
I should like to refer to some points made by Deputy Brennan and Deputy Cunningham with reference to harbours and piers. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to urge on the Special Employment Schemes Office, through Deputy Beegan, the Parliamentary Secretary, to assist us in County Kerry in this regard. As a member of the county council, I put forward a proposal with regard to slipways and piers—small, simple works—and asked for a grant from the Special Employment Schemes Office for the purpose. There was the usual condition that, unless the county council were prepared to contribute 25 per cent. of the cost and maintenance, there was nothing doing. The county council agreed to the 25 percent. contribution, but would not agree with regard to maintenance, and I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the other Department concerned if they could see their way to forgo that stipulation, because in many instances these piers and slipways were never the property of the county council. That is so in this particular instance.
One of these slipways is at Cromane and the other near Dooks. They are very essential to the fishermen down there because there is nothing but boulders and rocks on one side and there is no place where they can tie up their boats. In one case, the slipway cost only £1,100 to construct and the other is a similar construction further down. The county council are prepared to accept the conditions laid down by the Board of Works, with the exception of the condition in regard to maintenance. If the piers or slipways were ever the property of the county council, or if it could be shown that they were the property of the county council, they would naturally agree with regard to maintenance, but there is no such record. In some cases the Board of Works owns some of the piers throughout the country and, in others, the local authority is the owner.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary once again to try to place the shellfish industry in Cromane on a proper footing. I know that he did his utmost in the past in regard to it, but, through no fault of his or his Department, the development of that industry was slowed up. The local people thought they could do it best themselves and could market the shellfish, but it was a failure. Lack of proper equipment, freight charges and so on operated against them and now the saving of the industry is thrown back again on the Department. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary again to have the matter thoroughly investigated with a view to the maintenance of the industry on behalf of the people concerned. It would be a pity if, after all the trouble and all the expenditure over the years and the losses incurred by the Department in regard to its development, it were to be allowed to go by the board. I have had discussionswith the fishermen concerned and I believe, if the Department step in, these fishermen will co-operate in finding a way out of the many difficulties which up to now have prevented its proper development.
I see in the Book of Estimates provision for Grants-in-Aid of hatcheries and so on and I should like to make representations again with regard to a hatchery we have in County Kerry, operated by a voluntary organisation in the Killarney district. I understand that the Department did give a grant but it was not sufficient.
Perhaps on this occassion it could be supplemented and an increased grant given. With regard to the development of piers generally, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have the question examined in regard to the whole coastline in South Kerry. Apart altogether from the two proposals that I have mentioned at Cromane and Dooks, we have other small slipways and harbours on the south coast and on a few occasions proposals were turned down because of this maintenance question. If a serious effort is to be made to develop fisheries and to assist fishermen, I think these legal points and this shifting of responsibility from one Department to another or from the local authority to the Department should be waived, if we are to make any headway. I am confident that the Parliamentary Secretary will make every effort to assist us as he has done in the past. He visited Kerry on two occasions and we on behalf of the people are very grateful to him. I think that this new drive now will have very beneficial results in the future. The most urgent matter in regard to assisting the fisherman at the moment in these districts is to give the facilities I have indicated and to make whatever representations the Parliamentary Secretary can to the other Department to waive these conditions which the county council believe should not be imposed on them. I wish to state finally that I hope that before many weeks have passed the Department will send someone down to Cromane to have this question of the shellfishand mussel industry examined again and a proper arrangement come to as between the Department and the fishermen concerned.
There was a time when people referred to the fishing industry as being second only in importance to agriculture. Without attaching any blame to the present Parliamentary Secretary or to his predecessor or the Ministers previously in charge of this Department I think that at the present time we can scarcely refer to fishing in this country as an industry at all. Wherever the difficulty arises, in spite of everything that has been done for the industry it seems not to make any progress. In fact, if anything there has been retrogression so that we have come to the position that our young people are no longer desirous of taking up fishing as a livelihood. It is necessary, of course, as a first inducement to them, that they should be fully equipped with proper boats and gear, with boats of a type which would enable them to carry on their calling at all periods of the year and at various stations around the coast.
I do not know if the introduction of these four German trawlers by the Department of Fisheries has brought about any improvement, because so far as we know there is still a shortage of fish supplies in the various towns and villages throughout the State. Something must be done to induce men to enter the fishing industry. They surely cannot be expected to do so unless they feel that the prospects are bright and that they will be able to eke out a decent livelihood in following that calling. Something must be wrong with the system of the distribution of fish. The methods adopted at present are, I think, rather primitive. So far as I know, when fish is landed in various places throughout the country, somebody will purchase a certain amount of it at the pier or landing stage, throw it into a lorry and take it along 30, 40 or 50 miles, even on a warm summer's day, to market it in some town or village. It is very hard to expect people to purchase fish distributed in that way. If, as has been said, we as a nation do not like fish, it is quite possible that that is due tothe primitive system of distribution. The entirely wrong system of marketing fish may be responsible because of all foodstuffs fish must certainly be delivered and sold to the consumer as early as possible. You cannot expect people to buy stale fish.
The days of the old fish "jolters" should be gone for ever. In this progressive age new and up-to-date methods should be adopted and when fish are landed at the piers, some provision should be made either by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, or whatever marketing or distributing company is in charge, to have it sent off at once in what I think Deputy McMenamin described as insulated vans, or sent by train properly iced or kept in some type of refrigerator so that it will reach its destination in a perfectly fresh condition. I think that these insulated vans would afford a means of distributing fish to inland areas, more conveniently than sending fish by train. Until such time as fishermen can have their fish distributed and marketed in an up-to-date manner they can scarcely be expected to put their heart and soul into their work. It has happened at various times when fishermen have landed their catches that no provision has been made for taking the fish to distant areas. In such a case it has to be dumped back into the sea. So many endeavours of various kinds have been made in connection with the fishing industry that I think the time has come when there should be a full inquiry into the whole question to find out what exactly is wrong that the progress we expected has not been made.
Deputy Cunningham suggested that there might be an improvement if more money were put into the industry. It is quite possible that money will be required, but there is no use in putting money into the industry unless it is certain that that money will be spent to the best advantage. Even if the proper type of boat and the best possible type of gear are placed at the disposal of fishermen, it may not always follow that they will make a success of their job. We all know that if there are fishermen fishing with a certain type of boat and other fishermen fishing with another boat with thesame type of equipment, one group may make a success of the job and the other may not. We may assume, therefore, that, as in other callings, in one case the fishermen may be regarded as highly efficient in the carrying out of their work and in the other case the fishermen are careless or not properly trained in the work they are required to do.
If in the vocational schools which are now established, even along the western seaboard, young men were taught the proper method of using up-to-date equipment for the fishing industry, how to preserve and repair the gear, and how to use their boats to the best advantage, it would be a help to the fishing industry by enabling them to have bigger catches. Full and proper provision, however, would have to be made for the distribution of fish to all parts of the country. This method of sending fish to Dublin from various parts of the country and then sending it out again seems to be very expensive. Whoever contrived that system of distribution and marketing must know nothing at all about the distribution of foodstuffs. As I stated, the fish should be placed on the consumers' table in as fresh a condition as when it left the sea.
With regard to the use of the deep-sea trawlers, inshore fishermen and other people hold that you cannot carry on the two methods side by side. I think that it should be either one or the other. In fact, I do not think it was advisable for the Government to undertake that type of fishing with these deep-sea trawlers. They are certainly in competition with the inshore fishermen. I do not know the exact system by which fishing is carried on in England, but Deputy McMenamin has stated that last year it brought in an income of £34,000,000, and I do not think they have any Minister of Fisheries in England or even a Parliamentary Secretary in charge. When we think of that vast income from the fishing industry and throw our minds back to 1937 and 1938, when our total income from the export of agricultural produce from this country was only £39,000,000, surely it is time, if we are to make a success of our fishing industry,that something should be done about it. There is no use in Deputies talking here year after year and bringing forward much the same suggestions. In fact they become boring at times. Surely we have fishing experts in our Department as good as in any other country. As we have not been successful up to the present with this industry, it is time for the whole position to be further examined to see what can be done with the money available or any further moneys which may be made available so that this important industry will be made a success.
The fishermen in the Portmagee area, who mostly use small boats, complain that when they bring fish to Portmagee, where there is now a good pier, they must continue on for a further distance of 13 or 14 miles to Valentia Harbour and through the estuary or firth, right up to Cahirciveen. It is very hard on the fishermen after spending a night fishing that they cannot land their catches at their own local pier and that provision is not being made for them so that the catches would be transported in an up-to-date manner to the various markets. The position is that there is a refrigerating station in Cahirciveen and the fish is stored there and despatched by train the following morning. In such a case fishermen like that should not be asked to undergo the further tedious task of delivering their fish 14 miles away from their own pier. Then, again, there is in the Valentia-Cahirciveen area, at Renard Point, an old pier of a most primitive type which, from the very start, was entirely unsuitable for the landing of fish. Four or five years ago efforts were made to improve the pier and engineers were sent down from the Board of Works. Plans were drawn up and an estimate was made of the cost then. I think it was £64,000. Promises were made and fishermen were assured that work would be commenced in the very near future. That is five years ago and nothing has been done.
We would want to have a bye-election down there.
I hope not. After all, if we have good fishermen, good boats, good gear and good catches, surely we should bring the piers and the landing stages up to date, no matter what they might cost?
Again, fishermen complain of the poaching carried on by foreign trawlers. In fact, some of them attach more blame to this poaching at times when they have no catch. I do not know how true that is but certainly there is poaching by foreign trawlers and the inshore fishermen suffer because of that. I think it was Deputy Desmond who stated that we should extend our territorial waters. I do not see how we could protect an extension of our territorial waters since we cannot protect the territorial waters at present within the three-mile limit.
Hear, hear!
Certainly the methods of protection are not suitable. The corvettes are not suitable for protection. First of all, I understand that the engines must be running and heated for 100 hours before they can move at all. Even then they are not fast enough to overtake the foreign trawlers, which are certainly speedier than the corvettes. Some other method should be adopted by way of protection. In fact, I think if the crews of those 50 ft. boats in the different areas were armed they could, in addition to carrying out their ordinary work, come upon the foreign trawlers unawares. That might act as a deterrent to foreign trawlers coming within our territorial waters.
The fishermen in the Cahirciveen-Ballinskelligs area have frequently requested the Department to have the old look-out post equipped and manned as a means of protection against foreign trawlers and as a protection in the case of any accident that might occur to the fishing fleet when it is out at sea. I believe this is the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce but if the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of fisheries would make representations and at least request that the position be examined, the fishermen would feel sure that everything possible was being done fortheir protection. They would feel sure that as far as possible full provision was made for their protection and that of our territorial waters. They would be assured that in case of an accident the men on the look-out post would arrange that rescue crews would be sent to them as soon as possible.
Do cuireadh im leith a lán rudái nach ndearna mé. Moladh go ndéanfaimis a lán rudai atá déanta cheana féin nó atá á ndéanamh.
A great many things urged during this debate have, in fact, already been done or have been begun. Equally, there are a great many things for which I have been blamed and which, in fact, I have not done. I take it that a debate on fisheries is more prone to inaccuracies of that sort than possibly a debate on most other Estimates because, when the debate is finally analysed, we find we are all at one about what should be done and about the difficulties of doing it. That, in any event, is the interpretation which I put on the speeches I have listened to.
I think, however, that Deputy Blowick might have been a little more careful when he alleged that I had let down the West coast very badly. Deputy Blowick is a Mayo Deputy and was a Minister in the last Government and must be aware of the information that I am now going to give him. I am sure he knows the Achill Islands and I am sure he also knows a place called Keel which has a harbour that is commonly known as Purteen.
I am sure he also knows that some very enterprising local people in thatparticular place undertook the development of the shark fishing industry some years ago. I am sure he further knows that the harbour facilities at Purteen which is used in connection with this new industry are very unsuitable and require considerable improvement. I am sure he knows too that general fishing is also carried on from that particular port of Purteen for generations. I feel sure that he could, as a Deputy for Mayo and also as a Minister of a Government, have recommended the expenditure of a considerable sum of money on the development of that particular harbour. It is a very strange thing that when his Government was asked for the modest sum of £4,000 to carry out certain improvements in that place for the purposes which I have now outlined they could not see their way to find that sum. Will it not sound still more strange in his ears to learn that since we came into office we found £20,000 without half the delay? I think that answers the question that we have let down the West.
Nearly all the speakers dealt with practically the same topics and if I do not single out the Deputies individually in my replies I hope they will not take it that I am in any way ignoring their viewpoints. I move to report progress.
