When I moved to report progress, I had been making a comparison between the attitudes of both sides of the House to experiments in the development of fisheries and I instanced the persistent barrage of attack that lasted for the three years I was Parliamentary Secretary against the proposal to add three offshore fishing vessels to our fleet. I remember being told that 100 questions had been prepared for reply by me in the Dáil. I did get a number of them and the answers I gave to them apparently produced a different counsel, in respect of that particular batch of 100 questions, in any event; but the point I really want to make is that there should be a more accommodating attitude particularly in relation to an industry which has had the vicissitudes of the fishing industry for a number of generations.
I pointed out the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party to one very large scale and costly experiment which produced a heavy loss. It began in 1931 and it lasted for about two years and the loss—on the chartering of these eight cross-Channel vessels—was £59,000 in round figures. There was a further chartering of Irish boats which produced a further loss of £21,000, making in all about £80,000. That experiment was stopped by the Fianna Fáil Government but they stopped it as a result of an examination of its finances, and there was no barrage of opposition or obstruction here in Dáil Éireann in regard to the matter. That is where I want to join issue on the matter of these three boats.
After all, the present Minister for Agriculture indicated that he, too, was going to have an experimental boat of 80 ft. length and there was no one on this side of the House to say him nay. We would have wished him well. He was to operate the boat from Costelloe Bay for the training of potential fishermen in Connemara. He said here a little more than that, as reported in Volume 151, No. 12, on the 22nd of June:—
"We formulated a scheme to revive the fishing industry along the Connemara coast, to provide special harbour facilities, to provide boats and, if necessary, to get boats manned by foreign sailors to train young fellows who wanted to equip themselves to go to sea on their own in due course along the Connemara coast."
Where is the essential difference between the idea behind that and what we did? The only part of this programme outlined here in respect of which I could find any evidence in the Department of Fisheries was the one to get an experimental boat. There was no question at all about harbours, providing boats, or anything of that sort. I take it that the boats would come, anyway, in the ordinary course when men were trained.
On the question of harbours, apparently there are divided counsels on the Government side. The Minister for Agriculture said he was in favour of them. In the same volume, in column 1731, the Minister for Finance is reported:
"In regard to fisheries, I think that one of the troubles in regard to our fisheries—and I am not making this as a Party point at all—is that we have been inclined to dwell on the harbour facilities too much and to dwell too little on the fishery end of the industry."
In the same strain we had the Minister for Local Government, at column 1782 of the same volume:
"Harbours have been mentioned in this debate. I think that far too much time and money was spent on harbours in this country."
He must know that in Donegal there is a considerable interest in harbours, which are a vital necessity now for the type of boat that is being used. They must remain afloat at all times. We have now what we did not have in the past, continuous fishing, and even if it were possible to draw up the boats it would not be in the interest of the fishermen to do so. Whether we like it or not, the provision of harbours will have to go hand in hand with the provision of boats.
I was referring to the criticism of the off-shore boats and I was also referring, by way of comparison, to experiments of a similar kind. It is not true to say that the taxpayer has not been willing to provide money for the fishing industry. We know that under the Revision of Loans Act, 1931, a sum of £70,000 was wiped out. These were loans due on boats that had been issued over a considerable period and the Government of the day decided that this money could not be recovered and they wiped it out. That was in 1931. From that period up to 1938 a round sum of £30,000 of further loans was wiped out. During that period the British fishing industry was down on its uppers and if they could not make theirs pay at that period I take it that ours was bound to experience somewhat similar adverse circumstances. It is worth noting that between 1939 and 1952 a sum of only £2,000 was wiped out.
That brings us to a very important consideration in relation to the development of fisheries. Experience during the 1914-18 war was that any sort of a boat earned money. The reason was quite obvious: the British fishing fleets had to retire from fishing. The result was that the reduced fishing made fish more available along our coasts and boats that would not be regarded as seaworthy in the ordinary course were found to be quite profitable. After that war, the slump set in and by 1927 whatever was in it had disappeared. In 1928 the slump was on and as a result in 1931 a new Act was passed, a new association was set up and a new system of financing the issue of boats was evolved. That started off with high hopes. Everyone wished it well, the fishermen were organised, their catches were taken and marketed and appropriations were made against the cost of the boats.
The period up to the beginning of the Second World War proved somewhat similar to the previous period and the sum that I have mentioned had to be wiped out. I consider that the wiping out of these loans was fair evidence enough that the Irish taxpayer was prepared to be generous. What I want to say to the Irish taxpayer is that we have evidence now that these slumps will not recur—there were a few setbacks when the war ended—in so far as one may form an opinion on it from the returns of the fishing. When one is trying to assess the value of the fishing, I think it is well to eliminate herrings and mackerel, which are not reliable pointers in any sense. The class of fishing to study, in my opinion, is that which is called demersal, that is, the ordinary kind of fish which one meets with every day on the market, exclusive of herrings and mackerel. We find that we had something of a peak figure in 1945, 164,000 cwts. Then there was a tendency to drop, which continued for a number of years.
It is pleasing to note that the upward trend has set in again. The drop I have referred to was not anything to worry about; it was a trend, all right, which was a steady downward trend, but it was not great. The position has righted itself and the takings are on the upward grade again. That is due, in my opinion, to two causes. I would say the principal cause is the Control of Imports (No. 2) Order, 1938, which was a major factor, the second one being the provision of larger boats and better equipment. On that point, I think it is well that these 50 ft. boats which they have now are becoming standard. I, personally, had a long fight during my membership of the committee of the Sea Fisheries Association to try to bring about a change of counsel in regard to the size of the boats. I move to report progress.