Vol. 152 No. 6
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £77,760 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Chage which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries including sundry Grants-in-Aid.
The Estimate for Fisheries for 1955-56 is for a net sum of £116,640, of which £38,880 has been granted by way of Vote on Account, leaving £77,760 to be moved for as the Vote.
As shown in the printed Estimates, the amount required for 1955-56 represents a net increase of £9,040 as compared with 1954-55. This increase comes about by a gross increase of £19,090 on some sub-heads, plus a decrease in Appropriations-in-Aid, £7,330, which are set against decreases on other sub-heads amounting to a total of £17,380. To help the House in considering the Estimate, I will refer especially to the significant increases and decreases under the various sub-heads compared with last year.
Sub-head F (1)—Grants to Boards of Conservators, etc.—is more by £14,490 than the sum provided last year. The increase is made up of an additional £2,500 provided to meet the State's liability under statute to local authorities in respect of reduced income arising from the exemption of fisheries from local rates pursuant to the Fisheries Act, 1925. The upward trend in rates levied by local authorities automatically means an increase in the payments to be made to them and it is considered that £20,000 will be required this year. Grants to boards of conservators to supplement their incomes from local sources, i.e. rates and licence duties, so that they may be in a position to afford the best protection possible to salmon and trout fisheries, are also provided under this sub-head.
Last year, only a token sum of £10 was included for this service in the Estimates as the assistance needed to help the boards was then available from the Salmon Conservancy Fund. As the House is already aware, the Order imposing the levy was revoked in December last because it was considered that it imposed too heavy a burden on the fishermen, particularly netsmen, who relied upon their earnings from salmon fishing to provide an important part of their livelihood. The total available for distribution to boards from the levy was £9,050 and of this sum £6,400 has already been distributed to boards of conservators leaving a balance of £2,650.
With the winding-up of the Conservancy Fund the moneys required to help boards of conservators will be provided from the national Exchequer and we have included under sub-head F (1) the sum of £12,000 for that purpose. This sum, with the balance remaining in the Conservancy Fund, should be adequate to meet all cases in which grants to boards of conservators will be necessary, and I might add that it is by far the largest sum ever provided in the Vote to help boards of conservators in the maintenance of proper protection services. For the five years prior to 1953 when the levy came into force the sums provided ranged between £1,395 and £4,000.
Sub-head F (8)—Contribution to Salmon Research Trust—is a new sub-head. It provides a sum of £1,000 as State assistance towards the functioning of this new body which has been set up as an incorporated company and registered under the Companies Acts. This development is under the joint auspices of the Minister and Messrs. Arthur Guinness, Son & Co., Ltd., with the object of furthering scientific research into the life history of the salmon. It is hoped that the trust will be able to acquire a salmon fishery where its purposes may be pursued.
So that there may not be any misunderstanding as to the scope of the scheme, I would like to say that there is no intention that the trust should acquire and administer salmon fisheries as such. Its sole purpose is to further scientific research in this country in the hope that its activities will result eventually in the collection of scientific data which can be applied with advantage to our salmon fisheries at large. I take this opportunity, as the fishery authority, to express my sincere appreciation, and I am sure I express in this matter the feelings of everyone interested in the development of our salmon fisheries, of the generous and public-spirited action on the part of Messrs. Guinness & Co. in applying quite a considerable sum of money from their resources for this purpose.
The other increases compared with last year which with the increases already referred to make up a gross increase of £19,090, arise under sub-head F (2), Artificial Propagation of Fish, £50, and Grants-in-Aid of Administration and Development to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, £710. The increase under sub-head F (2) is of a casual nature and calls for no explanation. The increase under sub-head (G), £710, is a net figure. The provision for administrative expenses of the board is £2,145 greater than the corresponding provision last year, while the figure in respect of development works is £1,435 less than that provided in 1954-55.
The sum £42,385 appearing under sub-head G in the Estimates is made up of Grants-in-Aid towards the administrative expenses of the board, £28,025, and towards development works proposed to be undertaken by them, £14,360. The administrative expenses of the board, as of all similar bodies, continue to increase with the improvement of staff salaries and the employment of additional personnel. This cannot be avoided if the work of the board is to proceed satisfactorily.
The sum provided as Grants-in-Aid for development work covers five main projects. In connection with these grants, I wish to point out that each is being supplemented by repayable advances from the Central Fund. The projects are financed in this way because of the element of pioneering work which is involved and in respect of which it is considered reasonable that grants should be made. Each of the projects, of course, will or can be expected to return an income to the board and for this reason the board can be expected to meet a commitment to the State in respect of a repayable advance for part of the cost in each case.
As already stated, the total Grants-in-Aid for development purposes entered in the Estimates come to £14,360 and these are supplemented by repayable advances amounting to £14,315, making in all £28,675. The main projects in mind for execution are: The completion of the fish meal plant and the provision of a laboratory at Killybegs at a total cost of £4,610; the completion of an up-to-date fish handling premises at Caherciveen at a total cost of £1,800; the establishment of an up-to-date fish handling premises and the installation of an ice plant at Schull at a total cost of £8,000; the provision of an ice plant at Ballycotton at a total cost of £4,000; the establishment of a fish sales depot at Limerick at a total cost of £5,000 and the provision of a general store at Dublin costing £3,665.
These projects will add considerably to the facilities at the places mentioned for the proper handling of fish and to the services provided for the fishermen. I might say that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have, at my request, submitted an outline of their proposals for the next few years for the provision of better facilities for the handling and marketing of fish around our coasts. The proposals envisage setting up at suitable centres a number of manufacturing and processing plants which will be capable of absorbing for one purpose or another all fish landed by the fishermen. The programme submitted is well designed to achieve conditions of reasonable security and opportunities for the fishermen which are fundamental to the present welfare of the industry and to the policy of its continuing expansion in the future to the dimensions of which it should be capable.
In addition to the projects mentioned, the board also intends during the current financial year to commence the establishment at Galway of a comprehensive fish handling premises to include an ice plant, cold store and quick-freezing installation. The necessary funds for the purpose will be provided by grant from the National Development Fund to the extent of 50 per cent. of the cost, the balance to be by way of repayable advance from the Central Fund. The site has already been acquired and tenders invited from building contractors.
The work comprises the erection of buildings and the installation of machinery and it is not expected that more than half the estimated cost will have to be met in the current financial year. The total cost is expected to be about £56,000. As I have referred to the National Development Fund, I might add that the scheme for the supply of modern general purpose fishing boats to Irish speakers resident in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht will also be financed from the fund. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have made arrangements for the construction of the first boats to be issued under the scheme and during the present financial year it is expected that £32,000 will be issued from the fund in that connection.
The principal function of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara as regards development work is the provision of boats and gear for fishermen on hire purchase basis. This is most important work, and the results are self-evident all around our coasts in the numbers of well-equipped fishing boats of modern design and appointments which can be seen. These boats have brought about a very welcome upward trend in our landings of white fish, and where the necessary skill and industry exists they provide a satisfactory living for the fishermen. In the current financial year it is estimated that boats and gear to the total value of £123,000 will be issued by the board, but as these issues can, it is expected, be financed to the extent of £37,000 from moneys received by the board for cash sales and from hire purchase appropriations surplus to the board's commitments to the Exchequer in respect of repayable advances, the amount required by way of repayable advances from the Central Fund will be £86,000. In addition, it is also intended to make available to the board a repayable advance of £44,000 in respect of outlay on the provision of boats and gear in previous years from moneys available to the board other than repayable advances.
The total provision being made for the board's work in the current financial year is therefore £42,385 in the Estimates before the House, repayable advances from the Central Fund for the supply of boats, gear £130,000, advances for general development purposes £28,315 and grants from National Development Fund £46,000, making a total of £246,700.
While I am on the topic of the issue of boats and gear by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, I am sure that the House will be interested in what has been achieved by the board in that regard during the year ended 31st March, 1955. In the year, ten new 50 ft. boats were built in the board's own yards, and one 60 ft. boat was built in another yard in the country. In addition, the board reconditioned six boats, one boat was engined and two secondhand boats were purchased and issued to fishermen. At the 31st March, 1955, the board had under construction in their yards seven 50 ft. boats while other yards in the country had in hands to the order of the board one 45 ft., one 50 ft., two 55 ft. and one 60 ft. boats. In addition to boats, the board issued in the year fishing gear and equipment to the value of £40,000.
While dealing with the functions of the board, I might add that on the fish sales side of their business a considerable increase was achieved compared with the previous year. The auctioning and wholesale sales in the past year came to just over £500,000. The board is paying particular attention to the processing and distribution of fish and I am glad to say that private concerns are also actively engaged in the same field. As I have already indicated, the board, as our landings increase, are making arrangements for the opening of more distribution depots, and I have every hope that in course of time the difficulties which are experienced in obtaining fish in many places throughout the country will be resolved.
There is another activity on the part of the board to which I would like to refer, and that is the operations of the three high sea fishing vessels which they have in use. These vessels were acquired with the two-fold purpose of filling the gap between landings of inshore fishermen and domestic consumption, and providing experience both in the management and operation of such vessels. Since they commenced operations about two years ago they have made landings up to the 31st March last to the value of £72,856. At this figure these activities have resulted in a loss to the board, but as against that it must be said that during the period they have each been withdrawn from service for a considerable period for classification survey and complete overhaul. Apart from the fishing time lost, this work in itself was very costly and prolonged in view of the inadequate facilities existing here for the overhaul of diesel engines. With the experience gained by operatives and maintenance personnel and arrangements made by the board, the general standard of machinery maintenance on the vessels has been raised to a satisfactory level and much less expense in that connection may be hoped for in the future.
Another difficulty that has been experienced in the management of these vessels is the question of certificated skippers and second hands. Such personnel was not available as far as could be ascertained in this country for more than one vessel. It is hoped that, with the experience provided, members of the crews of these vessels will eventually be able to qualify on the practical side for certificated posts. Furthermore, to try and improve the position the board instituted a trainee course on the vessels. So far the number of young men prepared to persevere with the course has been disappointing, but the course will be continued. At the end of a further 12 months the boats' activities will be again reviewed.
So far I have dealt in some detail with the sub-heads which provide for considerable increase in expenditure over the provision in the Estimates for last year. There are decreases totalling in all £17,380 on other sub-heads. The principal reduction is in the case of F (5), compensation, etc., which covers an item of £20,000 compared with £36,000 last year. This provision covers compensation to fishery owners and others who suffered loss as a result of the abolition of fresh water netting under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, 1939. Compensation paid to 31st March, 1955, amounted to slightly under £100,000, and it is estimated that at least another £50,000 remains to be paid. It has been found rather difficult in some cases to complete the legal procedure necessary before sufficient proof of title is produced to enable payments to be made, and it is not expected that more than £20,000 will be needed to meet claims which will be finally cleared by the law officers during the year ending 31st March, 1956.
As to the general position of the sea-fishing industry, I am glad to be able to report to the House that landings for 1954 showed a considerable increase over those for 1953. The landings of demersal fish—that is, generally speaking, deep swimming fish—at just 170,000 cwt. showed an increase of 22,000 cwt.; and the landings for pelagic fish—those that are generally found near the surface—increased by 10,000 cwt. The returns to the fishermen from both classes of fish were in 1954 £636,000 compared with £545,000 in 1953. The landings of demersal fish in 1954 were, I may add, the highest landed here by our own boats in living memory.
The varieties which showed the most significant increases in landings in 1954 compared with 1953 were haddock, ray, whiting and herring. The most notable decrease took place in the case of plaice.
As to shellfish, it is not possible to give global comparative figures as some species are marketed by count and others by weight, but the overall returns to the fishermen at £155,000 compared with £143,000 in 1953 indicate the improvement which took place. Crabs and periwinkles showed increased takings while escallops, lobsters and oysters were taken in reduced quantities. The weather conditions generally during the shellfish season in 1954 were not favourable, and it is satisfactory to note that despite this handicap the monetary returns to the fishermen showed a fair increase. This can be attributed, I think, to the steady and increasing demand that exists on the Continent, particularly in France, for some kinds of our shellfish, particularly crawfish, lobsters, periwinkles and escallops. There is keen competition to supply that market, and the prices paid to our fishermen were steady throughout the year at a good level.
In this connection I am glad to be able to say that during recent trade discussions in Paris we secured increased outlets in France for those varieties, lobsters and crawfish, which are still subject to quota restrictions. The other varieties of shellfish which we send to France are free from quantitative restrictions. The position now is that provided we get reasonably good fishing weather there is every encouragement for a much increased output of shellfish and I have every confidence that in 1955 our fishermen will rise to the opportunity.
Within the past year or two considerable development has taken place in the processing of fish in this country and a regular feature of the retail trade now is the availability of quick-frozen fish of various kinds deep frozen in consumer packs. This is a welcome development as it helps to use up excess supplies on the fresh market thereby giving our fishermen further security in the marketing of their landings. Progress has also been made in the use of the most modern technique in the smoking of fish and it is hoped that, as has already been achieved as regards fresh fish, the curing side of the industry will, in course of time, be able to supply the needs of our home market and thereby render imports of smoked fish, which are at present considerable, unnecessary.
Up to about 25 years ago the herring and mackerel fisheries were the principal interest of our fishermen and the mainstay of these fisheries was the salt curing trade. The product was exported but the overseas demand disappeared due to changing conditions in the importing countries. There has been a revival of interest recently in cured herring from this country and there is some hope that curing on an increased scale may develop in the next few years.
This fortunately coincides with evidence of the return of the herring in heavy shoals to our coasts. New methods of fishing herring, such as the use of the ring net, are being introduced among our fishermen, and it may be expected that if a steady demand for landings can be created and maintained our fishermen will take advantage of the situation and devote themselves to herring fishing as the seasons come around. Everyone recognises the value which a successful herring fishing, as part of their annual fishing programme, can be to our fishermen and everything possible will be done to encourage the curing trade. As recently announced, there would be no objection from the fishery viewpoint to the return of British curers to our ports. As to mackerel, the same hopeful prospects, as in the case of herring, for the revival of the curing trade, do not exist as the old-time export market in the United States does not show any sign of returning.
Whenever the disposal of heavy landings of fish of any kind comes under discussion, the establishment of fish meal plants is always mentioned as the obvious solution of the problem. The conversion of surplus fish supplies into fish meal is, of course, a very valuable industry as it helps the fisherman to dispose of his landings in full and also provides a very valuable protein feeding stuff for the agricultural industry. The economics of fish meal manufacture must, however, be borne in mind. Much valuable experience and information has been obtained by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in the working of the pilot plant operated at Killybegs and officers of my Department have collected much information as to the manufacture of fish meal in other countries.
It may be taken that the smallest fish meal plant capable of being worked on a commercial basis would cost about £60,000 to erect. In order to work such a plant on an economic basis an intake of at least 50 tons of fish per day for at least 60 days over a more or less continuous period each year would be necessary. These figures will give some idea of the difficulties to be met in establishing fish meal manufacture in this country on the basis of present landings. Furthermore the prices which could be paid to the fishermen considering that it takes about five tons of raw material to produce one ton of fish meal would need to be very much lower than the prices which could be paid for fish either in the fresh or processed state used for the consumer trade. As in other countries, the price would be about 35/- per cran for herring landed near a factory. It follows that heavy landings would be required per boat if fishermen are to be satisfied with the results and encouraged to fish specially for the purposes of fish meal manufacture.
So far I have dealt with the sea-fishing side of the industry and before I close I would like to refer to the general position of the other side of the industry, i.e., inland fisheries. This consists of the salmon, sea trout and eel fisheries which are carried on on a commercial scale as well as being, as regards salmon and sea trout, a very important sporting and tourist attraction. We have in this country extensive brown trout and coarse fish waters. These fisheries provide much pleasure to our own people and are an important factor in the tourist traffic. They are not, however, subject to rod licences or to any regulations as to furnishing returns of catches so I have no records as to the actual number of fish taken.
As to salmon, sea trout and eels, we have such records and the following figures may be of interest. The total catches in 1954, excluding the portion of the Foyle area on this side of the Border were: salmon, 17,500 cwt.; sea trout, 650 cwt.; eels, 1,300 cwt.; compared with 16,000 cwt.; 550 cwt. and 1,700 cwt., respectively, for 1953. The total cash value of the catches of these fish to the fishermen as returned to the Department was £529,000 in 1954 compared with £553,000 in 1953. The average price per cwt. for salmon fell during 1954 by about £3 per cwt. compared with 1953. The number of salmon rod licences issued in 1954 was 6,195 compared with 6,050 for 1953, while the number of net licences decreased slightly from 1,532 to 1,453.
As to brown trout and what are generally known as coarse fish, the main developments are taking place through the efforts of the Inland Fisheries Trust in co-operation as regards some waters with Bord Fáilte. Local angling clubs and committees are also, of course, making valuable contributions to the development and I am glad to say that in some cases local waters have been turned to good account by such committees in attracting visitors and tourists. This is very valuable work which, of course, must rely on local initiative and enterprise, and I need hardly say that both my Department and the Inland Fisheries Trust will be always ready to help with advice as to the best lines upon which the development of local fisheries should be tackled.
As to the operations of the Inland Fisheries Trust, as the members may probably be aware from the annual reports so far issued, much progress has been made in restoring our brown trout fisheries. Prior to the establishment of the trust there was grave danger that our principal brown trout fisheries, particularly in lakes, would be eventually extinguished through the uncontrolled increase in numbers of predatory fish such as pike and perch. Already the steps taken by the trust have reduced these predators in many waters to the point that stocks of brown trout are rapidly on the increase and it can only be a question of a short time until we again have brown trout fisheries in this country as attractive to the angler as the best in any other country.
Having achieved so much in the reduction of predatory fish, the trust have now in hands the establishment of a fish farm to accelerate the rehabilitation of the brown trout fisheries by releasing therein young trout of the fingerling stage instead of trout fry which, being at a helpless stage of development, are preyed upon with great loss by other fish. The fish farm will, of course, also serve other purposes as several kinds of fish can be reared to the adult stage and, as well as being available for breeding purpose poses, provide an opportunity of having scientific observations made during the course of their development. Extensive tests have been and are being made at various sites which seem to have the characteristics desirable for the purposes of a fish farm, and it is hoped that constructional work can be put in hands at the site finally selected in the early future.
There is one matter concerning the trust which is a cause of disappointment and that is the relatively low membership which it has so far secured. In the Estimates before the House, provision is made for a contribution of £10,000 from State funds for the trust. There are many thousands of brown trout anglers in this country, but the membership of the trust so far has only reached about 1,500. The membership fee is only 5/- per annum and carries with it the right to fish in any of the waters under the control of the trust. Apart from this advantage it is indeed surprising that a greater number of anglers have not given their moral support, as well as financial, to the trust by becoming members. By doing so they help the trust in its work and show that as a body they are prepared to help in bringing the brown trout fisheries throughout the country to their highest pitch of development.
I have reviewed in a general way the present position of our fishing industry, both sea and inland fisheries, and I think it may be fairly claimed that we are making progress in many directions. If there are any points on which Deputies require further information, I will do my best to supply it.
Ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeachas a dhéanamh leis an Rúnaí Parlaiminte agus leis an mBord i dtaobh an dul chun cinn atá déanta chomh fada is atá iascach fairrge ina iomlán sa cheist. Chuir mé ceist síos chuige tamaillín ó shoin—timpeall sé mhí ó shoin—ag fiafraí an rabh ar intinn aige clár oibre a bhí leagtha amach ag an mBord a chur chun cinn agus gan aon bhac a chur leis. Fuair mé freagra fírinneach uaidh go raibh sé ag glacadh leis an gclár oibre a bhí leagtha amach. Ar ndó, d'fhág sé sin faoi shástacht intinne mé fhéin. Ag baint leis sin, caithfidh an Rúnaí Parlaiminte a admháil go bhfuair sé an saol mar Rúnaí Parlaiminte, agus freagracht na hiascaireachta air, i bhfad níos boige le bliain anuas ná mar a fuair mise le trí bliana roimhe sin.
Agus mé ag éisteacht leis an ráiteas atá tugtha amach anois ag an Rúnaí Parlaiminte, is féidir liom a rá go bhfuil tairbhe amháin as an athrú Rialtais a bhí ann bliain ó shoin agus is é sin go rabh me i ndon suí síos anseo i nDáil Éireann agus an chaint atá ráite ag an Rúnaí Parlaiminte a chloisteáil uaidh. Ní h-é an sórt a bhain go hiondual ag a chomh-chomhaltaí san Pháirtí sin thall le trí bliana roimhe sin.
Ní gá dhom a lua ach aon cheann amháin de na ceisteanna a bhí conspóideach, gan aon fháth, gan aon údar, agus mise i mbun na hoifige— agus sin í ceist na trí mbád a ceannaíodh thall sa Ghearmáin. Rinneadh ceist phoiliticiúil den rud sin ar an bpointe a ceanglaíodh i gcaladh anseo in Éirinn iad.
Anois tá cuntas réasúnta maith tugtha ag an Rúnaí Parlaiminte don Dáil i dtaobh na dtrí mbád sin. Tá sé ráite ag an Rúnaí Parlaiminte go raibh an chaint a rinneadh i dtaobh na dtrí mbád sin áibhéileach; agus tá an údar ag an Rúnaí Parlaiminte é sin a rá
Agus táim in amhras—go dona ar fad.
Dá mbeadh an Teachta Ó Coileáin ag éisteacht go cúramach leis an Rúnaí Parlaiminte, tá mé cinnte go mbeadh sé ar mhalairt aigne.
Bhí mé ag éisteacht
Thug sé cuntas ansin go rabh cosúlacht, agus go raibh chuile chomhartha ar an scéal, go gcruthóidís go maith agus go ndéanfaidís maith don iascach.
Now you are putting a bit of trimming on what the Parliamentary Secretary said.
Gan amhras.
An bhfuil? I intend to speak in English later, but perhaps the Minister for Agriculture would give me his little interpolation in Irish. I would prefer it.
Lean as Gaeilge má's maith leat.
If we had a little practice across the House here, I am sure it would do good.
Tá sí go binn blasta agat.
Lean ort inGaeilge. Táimid sásta leis sin.
Beatha teangan í labhairt. Níor chuir mise stróbh ar aon Teachta. Níor chuir mé aon duine i sáinn i dtaobh na Gaeilge mar do cuireadh mise í sáinn mé fhéin agus tuigim deacrachtaí daoine eile. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil Gaeilge ag an Aire Talmhaíochta agus tá Gaeilge ag níos mó daoine sa Teach seo ná mar a cheapann daoine leasmuigh agus níl a fhios agam cén fáth nach mbaineann siad feidhm aistí. Tá an Teachta Ó Coileáin freagarthach as an gcaint leath-taobhach seo: ní mise atá ciontach leis. Déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall anois teacht ar ais arís ar an gcasán ar a raibh mé nuair a cuireadh isteach orm. Leanfaidh mé i mBéarla ar ball beag.
B'shin iad na trí báid seo—do réir na gceisteanna a cuireadh anseo—go raibh siad thar a bheith go dona ar fad ach níor dúradh go rabh siad faoi scrúdú le "Lloyd's Classification," a bhaint amach; níor dearnadh leithscéal de sin ag lucht a gcáinte.
Cuireadh amach do mhuintir na hÉireann—go mór mhór do iascairí á rá go rabh na báid seo gan a bheith go maith agus nach rabh iontu ach rudaí a bhí caite i leataoibh sa Ghearmáin. Cé'r cás é ach rinneadh an ceann ba shine acu sa bhliain 1947; bhí siad beagnach nua.
I do not intend to introduce anything in the nature of political contention into my few remarks on this Estimate. The Parliamentary Secretary has read out a statement that is couched on the whole in objective tone and terms. However, I think I am entitled—after there being a year since the change of Government—to reply to statements in regard to certain actions for which I was responsible. They are matters which are a continuing subject of fishery administration and therefore they are proper to be mentioned in this Estimate.
One of these questions was the decision to buy three off-shore vessels. No later than a week or so ago, the Minister for Local Government delivered himself of this denouncement of them:—
"I am very keen indeed to see that our fisheries are put on a much better footing and my friends on the other side of the House should have seen that was done instead of spending £60,000 on three derelict German trawlers. A number of good boats could have been bought with that money."
This, of course, was decided on in March, 1954. Why is it that the purchase of three boats, practically new, not for £60,000 but for £50,000, was a crime against the Irish fishing industry and the interests of the inshore fishermen when we were, in fact, importing very large quantities of fresh fish every week, the total in a year amounting to a very considerable sum? That was not the only objection raised to the purchase. There was also the question that we should not send money for the provision of boats out of the country when we had in this country boatyards capable of making them.
Hear, hear!
Deputy O'Leary says "hear, hear".
Why did you do it?
I want to ask Deputy O'Leary a question. If it was a crime for the fisheries administration under Fianna Fáil to spend £50,000 on these three off-shore cutters, would he not agree it was equally reprehensible for my predecessor in fisheries to spend between £40,000 and £45,000 on boats outside the country?
It should not be done by anybody.
We made no fuss about it. We said that here was a contribution to the Irish fishing fleet; that it was a pity they were bought abroad but apparently the Minister is advised that he cannot get them at home. We did not complain in any sort of a fractious spirit but because we went out to pay £50,000 we were ballyragged for three years about it and the boats were condemned, as Deputy O'Donnell says, as three derelict trawlers.
How much did it cost to repair them?
How much does it cost to repair any boat?
You are very fond of going to the Germans.
What is the experience in regard to any wasting asset like a fishing boat or motor car? Is there not an annual repair bill on them?
Before they started to fish at all, how much had we to pay to make them seaworthy?
I cannot give all the details.
You gave them to me before.
I cannot give Deputy Collins the detailed account of what it took to put these boats out of the harbour. Do we not all know that a boat has to have some expenditure? There is, for instance, the matter of stores.
For obsolete boats.
They are not. The Parliamentary Secretary did not say that.
Deputy Bartley should be allowed to continue without interruption.
I am not interrupting him; I am only giving the facts.
I do not mind a bit. It will possibly save me the trouble of making a set speech which I have not prepared and if Deputy Collins is prepared to help me to get over the job this way I am satisfied.
I will have something to say about that.
In connection with the expenditure of money on a worthwhile experiment to get information as to how we ought to proceed, there must be experiments and if a thing is an experiment of its very nature there must be a risk of losing money on it. What I want to complain about is this. If we on this side of the House make an experiment we are in the wrong, but when others do it we adopt quite a different attitude in the matter. We let the experiment work out and see exactly what it is worth and if there has been negligence of a highly blameworthy character we will attack it.
Your experiments are usually ill-conceived.
I admit that the development of our brain power is somewhat stunted. All the brains are over there. I will concede that, but within that limitation I think our experiments are entitled to a little more consideration than they have got. Indeed, for that very reason they would be entitled to it. Talking about these experiments, perhaps Deputy Collins is not aware that there was another very costly experiment which had to deal with boats from outside. They came in here and we did not own them. When they came in here they left again in the ownership under which they came after a much heavier sum of money was lost on them than on the three boats. The three boats I refer to we own, and we are using them as training ships.
We know that we have young men now being trained to qualify for their ticket. I think Deputy Collins and every other Deputy who took an interest in this matter must know from the replies to questions given in the House that there is a complete absence of men qualified to take a boat even of our standard 50-foot size on the sea if the Department of Industry and Commerce were to enforce the appropriate regulations. There is one service that is being provided by these boats.
You will find them in Milford Haven and Cardiff.
If we are prepared to spend money to train these men on these three boats and are able to produce a succession of people who qualify for their ticket——
For the Merchant Navy.
——I would say to Deputy Collins that the expenditure will not be as great by way of loss in that respect as if we were to keep on sending trainees to foreign countries and pay their expenses.
We can get them from Milford Haven and Cardiff— hundreds of them.
Deputy Collins says we can get them back. Perhaps, it is better that I should make my speech by way of this questioning and answering but I want to tell Deputy Collins that if they were available in the numbers he suggests advertisements were inserted both in English and Irish papers on several occasions and we did not succeed in getting them. If we did, we would not have taken in non-nationals. We would have given the job to Irishmen but apparently they found themselves in employment that satisfied them.
Conditions were not attractive enough.
The main point is that here in Ireland we are now training them and whatever loss is experienced is, in my opinion, well-spent money. We know that as well as the service rendered by qualifying men under the Merchant Shipping Regulations to take boats to sea they will also pay their way as fishing units. In any event, what I do want to cavil at is the straining at these gnats that have a Fianna Fáil tag on them and the swallowing of the camels that they produce themselves. What about the eight cross-Channel vessels on which £58,932 was lost?
When?
In 1931.
The Deputy need not go back to the age of Moses.
Will the Minister for Agriculture advert to the point I want to make, that experiments should not be denounced before they are well begun? We followed that particular advice in relation to any experiments that our opponents carried out. I move to report progress.
