Committee on Finance. - Vote 28—Fisheries (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Wednesday, 19 Jun 1957

Committee on Finance. - Vote 28—Fisheries (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a sum not exceeding £88,200 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, 1958, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.—(Minister for Lands).

Parlimentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Bartley)

I shall not delay the House very long this morning, but I wish to appeal to the Minister not to let his judgment in dealing with the three off-shore vessels be influenced by the campaign of opposition to them carried on quite unjustifiably. If he should contemplate disposing of these three vessels, I would suggest he should not do so until the political controversy created around them has died down, so that an unprejudiced market might be found for them. After all he has a precedent which I think should warn him against any course of that kind. We had the case of the hotels which were bought and subsequently disposed of by the Tourist Board at figures much below their market value.

Deputy Dillon said that he had opposed and refused all applications from foreign corporations to start operations in this country. If he thinks that the Minister's statement indicates that this party would connive at large foreign corporations interfering with the future of our own fishermen he has misinterpreted the Minister's remarks and Fianna Fáil policy in regard to this matter. There is complete unity in our Party in regard to this matter but that cannot be said of Fine Gael, for instance, because when I was Parliamentary Secretary another former Minister, Deputy O'Donnell, wanted me to allow a Dutch corporation to operate from Donegal. I refused permission.

In regard to the bug that seems to have bitten a great many people about the size of boats and its impact on the inshore man, I should like to say my experience is that the inshore man has been gradually increasing the size of his craft for the last 20 years. I had an application from a fisherman at one of our principal ports for an 80-foot boat. When one considers that these three offshore vessels are only 94-footers, one can appreciate there was a great deal of ballyhoo, quite unrelated to reality, in connection with them.

The former Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Flanagan, made a reference to an engine which he observed in Killybegs boatyard, and made some facetious remark about boats without engines and engines without boats. The engine which he saw was purchased by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and was for one of two 80-foot wooden boats which it was proposed to build at Killybegs. I have already said that in fact we had an inquiry from some of our own inshore fishermen for a boat of exactly that sort. It is incomprehensible to me that the former Parliamentary Secretary in charge of Fisheries would not have been aware of these facts. It seems to me that the fishing industry here, beset as it is by so many difficulties, to which reference has been made by Deputies from all sides of the House, should not be made worse by irresponsible statements of that kind, particularly by people who should have been aware of the facts.

In regard to the attitude to foreigners and fishing rights here, perhaps it is worth nothing in passing that in the 1950 Fisheries Bill, which Deputy Dillon himself sponsored in the Dáil, there was a clause included which forbade Irish nationals from fishing in the sea unless they could prove, if required to do so, that they were fishing either for sport or in the interests of science. The clause also provided that the only people who could fish without let were foreigners. I eliminated that clause from the 1952 Bill and went a bit further with regard to the foreigners whom Deputy Dillon opposes so much. I provided that the ownership of Irish fishing boats should be 100 per cent. Irish. I do not think I need say any more as to what our attitude is, as to the practical steps taken by us to preserve this industry for the benefit of our own fishermen.

I did not intend to take up more than a few minutes this morning but I think I should make a reference to the point on which Deputy Dillon announced he is going to divide the House—the salmon levy. I do not know to what extent he has satisfied himself as to public opinion on this matter. I gave some information last night on how this levy affects the estuarine fishermen. I spoke from information gained by inquiries I had made. I found that the people concerned were completely misinformed as to the effect of the levy, but I understood the principle upon which the opposition to this levy is based is that there should be no impost of any kind on exports. If that is so sacred a principle I think it should apply all round, and whether the commodity be fish, potatoes or mineral ore, it should apply equally.

The Government does take, by way of royalty, something of the proceeds of mining operations. It is all very well to say that is a royalty, but what is the difference whether you call it a royalty, an impost, a levy or a tax? The principle is, in my opinion, violated in the same manner. I do not think, therefore, that this opposition can be elevated into a principle, but if it is based on any practical reasons, and if we are exhorted not to put any obstacle in the way of greater agricultural production for export, I think there is one fundamental difference between this levy and a levy on ordinary agricultural production. The difference is this: Nature itself provides the fisherman's stock in trade. The farmer is not so favourably circumstanced. He has to expend a very large amount of time, energy, patience and money in rearing the birds and the animals and in growing the crops which he exports.

We know that the fisherman, because of nature's bounty, has no such obligation placed upon him, and it was very largely because of the exhortation which we received from those who pursued salmon fishing as an important part of their livelihood, exhortations to preserve that livelihood, that steps were taken to ensure greater protection. I know of one case in which the fishermen of one estuary offered to pay voluntarily to the local board of conservators a certain sum per fish taken in order to improve protection in the narrow waters further up. They recognised that if this protection were not offered, in the course of time the return of fish from the sea would grow less and their livelihood would disappear with it. That was recognised by the fishermen. It was also recognised and supported by representations from people who did not depend very much on salmon fishing either as a sport or an industry.

It seems to me that, in view of the financial stringency which this country has been experiencing for a number of years, it was a very modest sacrifice to ask that 2d. out of 6/- or 7/- should be contributed for the worthy purpose of greater protection. It was in that spirit that the Fianna Fáil Government decided to approve of the proposal which it fell to my duty to put before them. It was not a conception of the Parlimentary Secretary of the time. It was not his set and pet idea. I had not even thought of such a method of raising money when I came in here, but the thing was driven home in my mind as being very fair and very reasonable and would in fact have doubled the amount of money which was then available for the very important work of protection.

It was for these reasons it was adopted by the Fianna Fáil Government. The amount of opposition to it was very small indeed and, on inquiry, I found it was based on ill-conceived notions about its effect which were themselves created by prejudice and political propaganda. I shall not say any more on that.

I want to say that the fishing industry has taken on a new character with the advent of modern equipment. In my young days fishing was practically entirely seasonal. Six months of the year was all that was spent by any boat on fishing. The fishermen depended on markets for pelagic fish, one of which is now behind the Iron Curtain and the other the United States. Those two markets are now gone. When people talk about the big markets for pelagic fish 50 or 60 years ago, they must remember that the boats for this fishing came from Scotland and England. Of 200 trawlers operating around our coastlines prior to 1914, only four were Irish owned. They got Scottish girls to handle fish and there may have been some largesse distributed incidentally to our own locals in that way. Now we have a continuous fishing industry throughout the year and, even though boats cost £10,000 or £12,000, it is the experience of anybody connected with or interested in this industry, that the vast majority of the people who get the boats justify the confidence placed in them and are repaying their obligations reasonably well. It was a very pleasant experience for the board to have it brought to its notice in recent years that the boat owners had progressed so well that the Revenue Commissioners were after them for income-tax.

We do know that has happened and the board is better informed than anybody else as to the speed with which these men met their commitments during the war. It was stated by Deputy Dillon that we have now reached self-sufficiency for the home markets. That position was reached some years ago. I was able to announce that fact before we left office in 1954 but that is not to say that there is not an even larger potential market amongst ourselves. With the new methods of treating and storing fish it seems to me that a greater potential market can be tapped.

With regard to development for export, I am inclined to agree with those who feel that the old-time methods of exporting pelagic fish are no longer open to us, at any event to the same extent. Possibly there are markets nearer to us for fish in the fresh state. With regard to activities undertaken by the Fianna Fáil Government during its last term in office, activities that have been denounced as being entirely unwarranted and uneconomic, such as the three offshore fishing vessels, I should like to remind Deputy Dillon of his own statement with regard to a policy for the establishment of reduction plants for handling large quantities of pelagic fish— reducing them to fishmeal and oil. He was quite satisfied that these plants would be uneconomic for a long time and that wiseacres would then come along and point out they were white elephants. If that is his attitude to a much larger expenditure for such plants I do not think he can justify his attitude towards our plans to deal with inadequate protection services. I am not going to go over them now.

I want to compliment the Minister on the expansiveness of his views but I do know that he will not be able to achieve the programme he has laid out during the term of the present Parliament. In any event it shows that his mind is thinking along the right lines. I do not have to warn him that he will be up against very ingrained prejudices largely to be found among vested interests. I think he will find that these vested interests will cancel one another out but he should not be too unduly worried if he finds them on occasion combining against him as the common enemy. That is natural. I think in these cases it is no harm to have a common enemy. Somebody must bear the opprobrium while the job of work is being done. I think the Minister has sufficient experience and knowledge generally of public affairs and he has sufficient courage to equip him admirably for the task he has taken in hands. Bail ó Dhia ar an obair. Guím rath Dé ar an obair atá idir lamhaíbh ag an Aire agus tá súil agam go n-éireoidh leis.

Mr. Desmond

As on some other Estimates I shall be brief in my remarks on the question of fisheries, not because of any lack of interest in it but because the Minister has been in office only a short time. Perhaps we should wait 12 months before making a comparison between his approach to the problems and that which was undertaken in the past.

I was surprised at the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary which, I understand, was that we had come to the stage as far back as 1954 of self-sufficiency for the home market. I think there is nothing further from the truth than to say that we have come anything near to self-sufficiency in relation to the possible demand of the home market for fish. I wonder does the present Minister intend to follow the same road as his predecessor did in relation to the question, the very large question, of inshore fishermen. I appreciate the case of the inshore fishermen and I realise the necessity for doing everything possible to help them but I also realised that over the years, because of Government policy being tied to the question of inshore fishermen, it left us in the bad position in which we now find ourselves with regard to the supply of fish even to meet a limited demand.

We must be honest in our study as to whether or not the inshore fishermen have met with the wonderful success that some Deputies have had reason to explain to us on many occasions. We know that on the west and south-west coasts an inshore fisherman means a man having probably a bit of land and who suits himself as to the time he will spend fishing and the time he will spend working the land. In the past, when such consideration was given to people of this type, it automatically meant that the supply of fish coming on to the market was governed by the desires of those people to catch sufficient to give to them that little extra they wanted to keep themselves going. That has been very noticeable in many parts of the south-west. I believe that is one of the problems connected with the lack of a supply of fish in places far removed from Dublin but nearer to the areas where these fishermen operate.

Speaking on this Estimate a few years ago, I mentioned what I considered to be the only possible approach to this matter. Now that we have Bord Iascaigh Mhara in operation it assumes greater importance. Instead of giving every consideration to inshore fishermen—the type of person who will do a little fishing when he likes as he will probably be working either on his own bit of land or for the county council for one period of the year—I think it is essential to extend the system of the full-time fisherman.

The Parliamentary Secretary quite rightly stated that many men are inclined to go in for more fishing and to consider the possibility of larger boats. The time is opportune to review the situation, with particular emphasis on the south-west, as to whether we are to have full-time fishermen or not. It is not sufficient for us to consider just the whims of people who want to put a certain amount on the market. Let us be honest and frank about the matter. The less they put on the market the higher the price they will get. We want to see them enjoy a good income but not at the expense of the community in towns 15 or 20 miles from the villages or landing quays from where some of these men operate.

I think it essential that the approach in relation to inshore fishermen must be automatically linked with deep sea fishing. Of course, it would be fantastic for us to suggest nothing but deep sea fishing having regard to the competition from other countries, not only at the present time but over the years. The one industry that has suffered more than any other industry from gluts in the past is the fishing industry whether it was carried on at Grimsby, Hull or anywhere else. Unfortunately, so great were the gluts that at times the whole fishing industry was thrown out of gear. The expense involved would not justify our going into deep sea fishing in a big way.

It would be essential for the benefit of the people to form a co-ordinating service as between deep sea fishermen and inshore fishermen. We might then be in a position to give a better income and a good living to those engaged in the fishing industry. Secondly, and this is of equal importance, we would be able to give a supply of fish to the home market not alone at odd periods of the year but throughout the whole year, particularily if we are to provide ice plants. Ice plants are undoubtedly of great importance in the many centres where they have been provided.

The Minister in the course of his introductory speech on this Estimate talked about the training of crews and skippers. Let me remind the Minister of one important point. In the areas along the seaboard of this country there are men who, because of their heritage and the fact that they were born and reared in the tradition of the sea, have the seafaring instinct in their blood. Very little training would have been necessary to provide our boats with suitably qualified skippers. If in the past we failed it was not because we had not enough well-trained skippers.

If the Minister is anxious to give young men a proper grounding in relation to the new equipment being made available to the fishing industry, he does not have far to go to get an answer. Why not arrange for cadetships or apprenticeships for those young men who are anxious to make fishing their livelihood and who would be in a position to take over responsibility for the fishing boats? Why not arrange for their training under the care of our naval authorities?

I have in mind those areas in the South where we have boats and where we have our naval services in occupation at the present time. I do not see any reason why it would not be possible to bring in under the wing of the naval authorities a certain number of young men—call them cadets or apprentices; it is immaterial—of good character and desirous of getting on and train them. It would be of great advantage to them and, indeed, it would be of much more advantage to the country as a whole if some of the time of the naval services was occupied in training these young men to be skippers of the boats of the future.

As well as the provision of such technical training, might I also say to the Minister that I do not see why it would not be possible for another limited period of service to be given to suitable candidates after finishing their time under the direction of the naval service on some of the ships of Irish Shipping? There is a connection between the State and Irish Shipping and if our Minister is so anxious to have the skippers of our fishing boats of the future well versed in relation to the various technical details and the up-to-date equipment made available to the fishing industry, deep sea fishing would itself have a direct bearing upon deep sea seamanship.

We are in a position to provide such training on Irish deep sea vessels. If the Minister is anxious to provide young men with technical training and improved facilities for the future in relation to fishing, I would suggest that the Minister should make use of the possibilities available to him in that connection.

The Minister also spoke at length about the export of fish. I do not want to dwell on the matter at length. As I said already, in the past the fishing industry suffered severely at periods because of gluts. That could also happen in the future. Before I speak of exports, I think it is more important to speak of supplying the home market with sufficient quantities of fish. I do not mind whether it is the present Parliamentary Secretary or Deputy Dillon who was Minister for Fisheries who makes the suggestion but we know from our experience that to suggest there is anything like a fair amount of fish being put on the Irish market is fantastic. Before we start speaking of exports behind the Iron Curtain or any other curtain, it is more important that we give our own people the opportunity of buying the necessary fish.

The Minister may say—and Deputy Dillon may have said in his time—that the demand for fish is not noticeable here. Whose fault is that? What provision has any Government made? What provision does the present Government intend to make in relation to the provision of fish for local authority institutions alone where there should be an adequate demand for fish, not alone on Fridays but on certain days in each week? Are the supplies available? What are the types, quantity and, above all, quality of fish made available to some of our local authority institutions? I believe no proper progress has ever been noticeable in relation to the provision of the supplies to the markets in various provincial towns and also in many of the villages throughout Ireland.

It may be argued that it is possible to obtain a good variety of fish in Dublin. That is true. I do not intend to go over the ground already covered by other speakers in relation to the fallacy of the argument about the landing of so much fish, whether in the north-west, the west, the south-west or down the south-east coast or up to Dublin and, in fact, perhaps going down again. However, I agree with many speakers about the nonsensical system of sending fish up to Dublin and then back again.

While people may be able to obtain a fair variety of fish in Dublin and while it may be possible to obtain whatever type of fish you may order in a hotel in this city, the plain fact of the matter is that anybody travelling through any of our provincial towns would be very lucky indeed to get any type of fish on a Friday. In many areas, it would be fantastic for a person to ask for fish in a hotel on any other day of the week. If the Minister adopts the cry of "Export, Export" at this particular stage when unfortunately it is a case of import, import tinned fish, his attitude will not bring us the satisfactory results we are looking for.

I believe we should educate our public to the eating of fish for which there would be a demand if our people were made to understand its food value and, above all, were sure that the supply would be there when they would want it. It would, perhaps, be more important to us to build up a greater home market for fish and in that way to release more meat for export. I realise that that argument touches on another Estimate and therefore I will not pursue the matter now. However, I consider that we have a greater opportunity of going into the export market in that way, at the same time helping the home market for fish, but we shall have to wait at least 12 months before we can assess the success of the present Minister's approach in that particular regard.

I wish to pay a well-deserved compliment to Deputy Dillon, the former Minister for Agriculture, for his work in the Department on one particular aspect. Boatyards have been mentioned very often during this debate, whether in the south-west, up around the northwest or in any other part of the Twenty-Six Counties. It is natural, when speaking of fishing, that we should take into consideration the availability of suitable boats, the availability of the necessary equipment and, above all, boatyards at the disposal of the industry proper. However we may differ, I want to put on record that Crosshaven boatyard would have been idle for the past 12 months were it not for the outstanding support given by Deputy Dillon. Two boats were given on contract to that yard. That meant that the worries of many of us who were born and reared in Crosshaven, and who knew the men working in that yard, were at an end for the time being. When the contract was given, these men were on the verge of getting their unemployment cards. They would then have had to go across the water or else to the unemployment exchange. Thanks be to God, in that particular instance, through the help and co-operation of the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, we were able to keep that yard going. That contract is now coming to a close and I earnestly appeal to the present Minister to give special consideration to Crosshaven boatyard where 40 men are employed.

With the activities that are bound to follow in the wake of the oil refinery in Cork harbour, the boatyard at Crosshaven will, at a future date, be able to provide good and steady employment if it is now given the help and support it requires to carry it over the next few lean years. The trained men there are extremely efficient and much credit has been given them for the type of boat they send out from their yard. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to give Crosshaven boatyard the same special attention which Deputy Dillon gave it.

It will readily be appreciated that in seaboard areas, where men are born and reared in an atmosphere of fishing and boat-building, the people are anxious to remain in their own country and continue in their own trade. If they get that little support and help which is so essential then that, in itself, will mean that in the southern area, the Cork harbour area—irrespective of what Government may be in office—the fishing industry, by virtue of that little extra help, will in the future be a little better off than it has been in the past.

Mr. Moloney

I should like to make a few remarks and suggestions. Part of my constituency comprises very important fishing districts, such as Dingle, Brandon, Castlegregory and Ballyheigue. I am anxious to make some observations on the Minister's statement of policy and also to ask for some special help for the fishing industry in North and West Kerry districts.

Deputy Palmer dealt with the fishing operations and the difficulties in South Kerry. Whilst the case made by Deputy Palmer would, in many ways, apply also to the part of North Kerry which I have in mind, there is a difference, and it is my intention, this morning, to draw the attention of the Minister to the present position of the fishing industry in our particular area.

I am glad to see from a newspaper report some days ago that the Minister has made an inspection of a number of fishing installations in Galway and other western areas. I appeal to him to endeavour to arrange for such an inspection of certain installations in Kerry and also to examine the potentialities of fishing in a couple of areas where it is now almost extinct. In this Estimate we find that a sum of £8,100 has been allocated for the Dingle quick-freeze plant. I am very glad this project has now reached a stage of finality and that it has been found possible to allocate money this year sufficient to erect and operate this quick-freeze plant so much desired in Dingle and looked for over a number of years. I trust that the work of installing the plant will be put in hand without undue delay. As time goes on I hope that, in addition to the quick-freeze plant, certain sideline industries will be developed there.

In that connection I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that there may be a very good opening in the Dingle project for such an industry as a fishmeal plant. With the substantial catches there are in the Dingle area, particularly now with the establishment of the quick-freeze plant, it will mean there will be a very considerable quantity of fish available. Possibly it may not be all suitable for export, and when that would be the case there would be a very suitable raw material for a fishmeal plant in that area. I understand that the imports of fishmeal are considerable. If that is so, I see no reason why we could not organise our fishing industry in such a way that we would be able to produce the necessary quantities of fishmeal at an economic price.

In my constitutency besides Dingle we have three other fishing villages, very well known in former years, that have now more or less gone out of the business. One is the Brandon Maharees area, which still operates the fishing industry but only in a very limited way. If and when the Minister arranges to visit that part of Kerry, I hope he will investigate the difficulties that exist in the Brandon area. I hope he will find it possible, with some limited assistance, to help the fishermen in that area with the problems that beset them at present. The second area similarly affected is the well-known village of Ball na Gall.

There is a third, a very populous area, Ballyheigue, which is situated in the northern sector of the county. It had a very fine fishing tradition for centuries, but because of the lack of landing facilities, boats and other relative factors, it has now gone out of fishing completely. I am glad to say, however, that the local people, through the organisation of Muintir na Tíre, have been bringing pressure to bear in recent months on the Government Department concerned with a view to restoring the fishing facilities they enjoyed in former years.

I understand that lobster fishing in particular was a speciality in Ballyheigue. I know that many people in the area have retained—perhaps it was handed down to them—the technique of that type of fishing. I think the lobster is a fish that is in abundance in our waters and we have not exploited that particular aspect of the fishing industry at all. Those remarks refer to the local requirements in my constituency.

I am very glad that the Minister, in his report to the House, dealt so fully with the whole fishing industry and that his remarks were so much to the point. I must congratulate him on the very comprehensive way his report was drafted. It is more like a business man's report, let us say a report prepared for a meeting of a board of directors. I think that is the way it should be. I have looked up the previous reports submitted to the Dáil in the case of Estimates of this kind and I must say I was not impressed as much by them as by the present statement of the Minister.

The people engaged in the fishing industry realise more than ever before that this industry is a very good second to agriculture. For that reason, they expect something big from Fianna Fáil in regard to what might be called a late, post-war planning scheme. The record of Fianna Fáil in regard to the fishing industry is a very creditable one. Up to the time of Fianna Fáil coming to power in 1932, the fishing industry was not organised on a very business-like basis. If we look up the records, we find that the first proper organisation was the Sea Fisheries Association which came to life some time around 1932. Undoubtedly, that association had very important work to do at the time and it served a long period of usefulness. Eventually, we find that the Sea Fisheries Association was more or less merged into a new organisation, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, which has been operating for some years and, I am glad to say, has been operating pretty successfully during the period of both Governments.

The record of the Fianna Fáil Party in connection with the surveying and construction of harbours has been particularly good. It is something which I hope will be emphasised by the Minister when he is winding up this debate. We have on record here many major schemes of harbour survey and reconstruction during the period of Fianna Fáil Government and continued, to some extent, I am glad to say, during one period of the inter-Party Government, too. We have in particular a very creditable record for minor works on harbours. These particular minor works were examined some years ago by a special inter-departmental committee set up by Fianna Fáil for the purpose of expediting action. It was considered on that occasion that many of these minor schemes for harbour development were urgent. I understand a small number of these schemes have been carried through, but unfortunately there are still a large number that have not been implemented. I would urge on the Minister the desirability of getting his engineering department on that job so that work on those schemes can be undertaken in the shortest possible time.

The record of our Party in connection with the provision of depots, ice plants, refrigeration plants and the other modern amenities necessary for the fishing industry is also very creditable. I am glad to see that, not alone will the Minister continue the good work done by his predecessors in office, but he will go further afield. I can see by the trend of his report here that we may expect very substantial developments in that part of the fishing industry.

The Gaeltacht Fishing Boats Scheme, which was started in a general way, and later in a more detailed manner, by Fianna Fáil, is something the Minister should examine as soon as he can find time to do so. While the hire purchase terms for acquiring fishing boats and gear are rather generous, I understand that there are occasions when the payment obligations impose severe hardship and strain on the fishermen concerned. In the light of this, I feel the Minister could be expected possibly to review the existing repayment arrangements to see if a more equitable and practicable scheme could be made in this matter. It is quite possible that the Minister will find his hands tied and that there is no possibility of bringing about the improvement that a number of people require. Nevertheless, I feel that if the matter were re-examined now it is possible some arrangement could be arrived at which would satisfy people who might often find themselves in the unfortunate position of having bad luck and of not being able to live up to the arrangements originally entered into when their luck seemed more promising.

The Minister's statement with regard to the various types of fishing is very interesting. I was very glad to see that he made special reference to deep sea fishing. I realise it will be difficult at the outset to find sufficient personnel and sufficient initiative to undertake the type of operation necessary but I feel this is a good business venture and that a number of enterprising people can be persuaded to enter into it. I refer to such bodies as co-operative societies and limited liability companies who would be in a position to collect capital and organise personnel to undertake deep sea fishing schemes on a commercial basis.

I would exhort the Minister to give every encouragement to such groups of people to enter into this aspect of the industry. It is something new and it is a venture into which most ordinary fishermen could not reasonably be expected to enter because of the danger of encountering very difficult periods during which they would not be able to carry on on their limited finances until better luck obtained. Limited liability companies and cooperative societies would be faced with a different prospect; they would be able to carry on over lean periods and wait for a good harvest to repay their borrowings and to provide dividends to which their subscribers would be entitled.

I think there is a great future for fishing on that basis. I believe there is also a great future for lobster fishing. I understand there has been a great expansion in this sphere of the fishing industry in recent years. However, the Department must provide greater encouragement in the provision of pots and ponds. I believe there is an acute shortage of pots and ponds at the moment and that unless we can undertake to alleviate that shortage the results of lobster fishing will be far from what we would desire.

In some of the fishing areas, fishermen have told me that they expect great things from the lobster fishing industry. It is, however, dependent on co-operation from this end. If the necessary co-operation from the Department is forthcoming, the personnel required for a big expansion of the industry is there and will be only too ready and anxious to avail of this good source of wealth from the sea.

Reference was made in the Minister's statement to the difficulties in connection with the training and provision of skippers. The Minister also referred to the fact that there is some difficulty in the existing general engineering arrangements with regard to repairs to fishing boat engines. I know very little about the position as regards the training of skippers. I do, however, feel that the number of skippers required will not be very large and that, if we still have difficulty in regard to their training, some arrangement could be arrived at under which trainees could be sent abroad.

I do, however, know something about the mechanical engineering side of this business, and I was very glad to hear the Minister refer to it in his opening statement. From my own experience I know that very valuable time has been lost during fishing seasons because of the lack of repair facilities for certain gear or mechanical appliances in the ports at which fishing fleets are stationed. In other words, there is a lack of facilities in many ports for repairs to fishing boat engines.

To help out in this connection I know that Kerry County Vocational Education Committee, some years ago, arranged a special marine engineering class in a technical school in a fishing area. After some initial difficulties, the committee were able to provide a special instructor to give the necessary general training to the boys who attended the school. The pupils were largely the sons of fishermen. Of necessity, the instruction given was of a very general kind but some of the pupils who attended the class told me afterwards that the instruction they got proved invaluable to them later when they entered the fishing industry. They received a good general knowledge of the working of marine diesel engines with the result that they were able to operate these engines more successfully in the course of their work afterwards. They were also very proficient when an engine showed any signs of defects and were able to prevent major break-downs during busy periods.

I feel that vocational education committees in fishing areas would be only too pleased to co-operate with the Minister in the provision of such courses of instruction. I think the sooner the Fisheries Branch prepares some sort of an apprenticeship scheme for marine fitters in this sphere the better. You have such schemes in operation in the Post Office, in the E.S.B. and in the motor trade. I am in a position to know that, as far as the motor trade is concerned, the apprenticeship scheme has been an outstanding success. It is not very long in operation and is operated more or less through co-operation between the Department of Education and the motor trade and, in the short time in which it has been in operation, it has had very genuine results.

As far as marine engineering is concerned, I think an apprenticeship scheme such as I have mentioned is badly required. It is one of the first steps I should like to see the Minister taking, and I hope that if such a scheme is inaugurated, priority of entrance to it will be given to people from fishing areas. I think it would be desirable also that apprentices should have a knowledge of ordinary fishing because most of their work, whilst it would be of a mechanical nature, would also have some connection with fishing problems. I think the best type of fitter would eventually be got if both conditions were taken into account.

There are also a few points I want to mention in connection with inland fishing. The levy of 2d. per lb. up to 1st May each year and 1d. thereafter is, in my opinion, a very equitable charge. I have listened during the debate to the case made by the other side against this levy and I must say it was not convincing. The fact that Fianna Fáil introduced this levy originally is the principle reason for the other side now taking up the attitude that the levy is improper and should be removed. Fianna Fáil introduced it and it was not very long in force when there was a change of Government. The Coalition Government came into power and removed the levy and it is because of that action that they are now trying to make the case that the levy should not be reintroduced.

I am glad to know that before the Minister did introduce the levy the Fisheries Branch had consultations with a number of boards of conservators throughout the country. At least ten boards recommended the introduction of the levy on the understanding that the proceeds from the levy would be largely handed back in the form of grants to these boards, for the purpose of increasing the protection of inland fisheries and helping the boards in regard to hatcheries and in other directions in which their responsibilities lie. The board of Feale conservators in Kerry and Limerick, I am glad to say, was one of the many boards which agreed to the reimposition of the levy and they are quite happy about it.

For a number of years boards of conservators have experienced a shortage of revenue and find it almost impossible to provide any adequate protection for the inland fisheries. The local men appointed as water keepers find it very hard to get the most effective results. Even now with the possibility of increased revenue to the local boards I feel that the Minister would be well advised to try to get a better degree of understanding between the Garda Síochána and officers of the boards. I do not know if the Gardaí have any obligation to co-operate with them or, for that matter, to assist in any way in protection work, except of course when their services are required in special circumstances. I do think that at the present moment, without suggesting that any additional duties should be imposed on them, that it should be possible to get the co-operation of the Gardaí in a more positive way than we have had in the past, if it could be arranged between the authorities of the Fisheries Branch and the Garda Síochána at top level.

The watch-keepers are usually local men and because of the difficult conditions of their employment they usually serve in their own localities. Very often they find it difficult to police the area effectively. I think the Minister should encourage the boards of conservators, who I understand are the appointing authorities for the keepers, to appoint keepers on a more permanent basis. I feel it is very unfair to expect a keeper to work for six or seven months of the year, give his best services for that period, and then find himself unemployed for three or four months. There should be more permanency attached to the job and if the Minister has any influence in the matter I think the boards should also be encouraged to pay more to these keepers. The average wages of a keeper are a little more than those received by an ordinary labourer working in the district and his job is a very unpopular one and a very objectionable one. You can only get men to do that work if they are paid proper wages, have security of office and have no special worry about the lean periods.

A lot of work has had to be done in regard to inland fisheries and that covers net and rod fishing. I think myself, and I make this point after very serious and careful consideration, that the charges for rod licences are somewhat on the low side. If the revenue from an increase in charges for rod licences was to be retained by the boards of conservators I would recommend the Minister to consider a revision of the existing charges and also the revision of certain net licences. The present charge for net licences varies from 50/- to £30. A revision in the lower charges would impose no undue hardship and in many ways would help the net licensees and they would probably make a better job of their assignment if, there again, the increase obtained from such net licences was used to develop the local boards and fisheries. I feel that hatcheries committees have not got the help and co-operation to which they are entitled from the boards and the Fisheries Branch. The value of a hatchery to a particular area is something that has never been stressed enough.

I would ask the Minister, when he gets an opportunity, to give to the public the statistics available from his Department regarding the value of hatcheries. I would also ask him to exhort the various anglers' associations to set up hatcheries where they are not already working. I would very specially recommend that substantial grants, above any other thing, should be made available to local anglers' associations, or to any other fishery body that would be setting up and maintaining a hatchery.

In various parts of the country anglers' associations have, at various times, carried out a special collection in their town or parish and have set up hatcheries. Those hatcheries were carried on fairly successfully for a year or two and then for some reason beyond their control the hatchery declined. In five or six years' time a fresh party comes along to try to do the same work and does it with some success. Eventually another party tries it and it also fails.

There are many parts of the river at the present moment which could very well do with a hatchery. Quite a lot of anglers, and I know the anglers' associations themselves, would be only too glad to lend a hand if there was some direct financial assistance forthcoming for the maintenance of those hatcheries. The work of installation and the early preparatory work is something that promoters do find very little difficulty in getting over but then, when it reaches the stage of production and eventually has to be maintained, due to lack of revenue the best results are not secured.

I do not want to delay the House unduly in making many more points even though I have some more, but they are not of very much importance. I am very glad to observe that this debate has been carried on with the minimum of political controversy. I think that is something that augurs very well for the future and something which I hope will encourage the Minister to go ahead, as I am quite sure he will, and try to bring this very much neglected industry out into the light of day and try and get to the position in our national economy where it should have been many years ago.

Dr. Esmonde

The number of Deputies taking part in this debate is a measure of the interest taken in our fisheries. That is, of course, a very good thing because we are all coming to realise that vast expansion is possible in the fishery industry.

I am particularly interested in the subject of poaching. Poaching is going on all around our shores. Recently, when we had a very rich harvest of herrings, probably the best for many years, around the Waterford and Wexford coast there were trawlers from practically every maritime nation in Europe. They found it worth their while to come and fish in our waters. Urgent representations were made to me by the fishermen in my constituency asking that they would be protected from these marauders. We got a corvette down straight away and the foreign trawlers went out to sea immediately. They had plenty of time to get out to sea before the corvette arrived because they could see her hull about 20 miles away. The corvette could not stay in the area indefinitely since we have only three such vessels at our disposal. The corvette went on somewhere else and the next day I had an urgent telephone call to say that the foreign trawlers were back again and were fishing inside the territorial waters. In fact, they were going into Bannow Bay itself. We got the corvette back again and exactly the same set of circumstances obtained.

Apart from the fact that the corvettes do not seem very satisfactory from the point of view of protecting our fishing industry, difficulty arises because the captains of the corvettes are not very clear—nor is anybody else in the country—on the regulations governing the limit of our territorial waters. It is assumed that our territorial waters extend over three miles, following the contour of the coast. I am informed that it is impossible for the Minister responsible or the Government to alter this state of affairs since they are awaiting the results of an international discussion with regard to a readjustment of our territorial waters.

It seems to me that we are rather over-conscientious in this matter. Conditions have changed considerably in the fishing arena over the last few years. The bigger maritime nations, with vast resources at their disposal, are able to subsidise fishing to a large extent. We a small nation, are unable to do that. These maritime nations are able to put much bigger boats at the disposal of their fishing fleets with the result that they can poach us illimitably. Not only do they poach us but they poach other nations as well.

Let me cite the case of Iceland, which is dependent largely for exports on fish. They had to face the same situation as we are facing now. The North Sea was fished out. There was practically nothing left in it and European countries found it worth their while to go and poach in Icelandic waters. Iceland did not wait for international discussions or regulations. She did the only sensible thing she could to save her economy. She extended her territorial waters to a considerable extent. I am not asking our Government, or the responsible Minister, to go to such extremes but I think they might issue a decree that our territorial waters extend right out from the promontories around our coast. That, if it does nothing else, will keep these marauding trawlers from going inside our Irish bays and poaching there.

There has been a good deal of discussion about, shall I call them, the ill-fated German trawlers bought by the Fianna Fáil Government. I am sure they bought them in good faith. I do not know who advised them when they bought them but these vessels were not apparently a success in that they required extensive refitting. We have never had the pleasure of seeing them around the Wexford coast. They have never got so far as that. I am told they have a steel hull. Would it not be possible to put them to some useful purpose? Perhaps they could be reconstructed into fishery protection vessels. They seem to have the sea power for that.

Any vessels used for protection purposes around the coast must be able to withstand heavy seas because it is a well-known fact that off the west coast one gets the worst seas in the world. Could these vessels not be reconstructed? I am told they cannot be seen miles away. I am also told that if they were properly refitted they would be seaworthy. Would the Minister not consider, in consultation with the Minister for Defence, utilising these vessels for the purpose of fishery protection? They would serve a useful function there. The corvettes serve a certain purpose and they can be augmented by the use of these vessels.

It must be remembered that there is a shortage of fish in other areas around Europe, areas which have been over-fished in the past. We have proof of that in the case of Iceland which I have cited. Surely it is worth our while protecting our fisheries here if it is our intention to develop them fully.

I listened with great interest to quite a number of constructive suggestions put forward by speakers on both sides. Some advocated bigger boats. Some advocated maintaining the status quo. Financially, we cannot compete with the maritime nations which are prepared to subsidise heavily their fishing fleets but I think we should try gradually to get into a bigger type of boat capable of supplying an expanding market. There is no use in our fishermen going out to fish if they cannot sell their produce. I believe there are export markets to be had, provided we have the boats to supply them. We must, however, begin by endeavouring to develop our domestic market.

It is a known fact that people living in rural Ireland cannot get fish. I have no doubt that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are doing the best they can and I believe that the scheme to extend the ice-cooling plants to different areas will be beneficial. It will mean that the fishermen will not be exploited to the extent they have been before. They will not have to sell on the spot but can hold out for a better price by putting the fish into cold storage.

That, however, will not distribute fish throughout the country. We have an enormous potential for fish throughout Ireland, if the people were able to get it. I should like to suggest to the Minister that the creameries, which have refrigerating plants, should be the distributing centre for fish. If you pass a country creamery you will see an enormous number of people delivering milk there every day. If fresh fish could be made available at the creamery, it would be natural for the farmer or anybody else delivering milk there to buy it. If the Irish people are to become fish-minded they must have an opportunity of buying fish.

Many Deputies mentioned that we import a lot of tinned fish. That is very true, and I think the reason that the Irish people eat so much tinned fish is that it is very easy to prepare. I suggest to the Minister that, in consultation with the Department of Education, he should take steps to ensure that through our technical schools and so forth, people in rural districts in Ireland will receive instruction on the preparation and cooking of fish. I do not hold myself out as an expert in the cooking of fish, but I do know that, generally speaking, if you order fish in many restaurants, it is not properly dished up. The cooking of fish appears to be an art which we have not completely mastered in Ireland, and it is an avenue worth exploring. If fish is properly dished up, people will eat more of it. If the people eat more fish, we will expand our fishing industry and we will be able to export more of the other items we wish to export.

Reference has been made to markets behind the Iron Curtain. Why should we look for markets behind the Iron Curtain? One of the arguments used why we should export fish behind the Iron Curtain was that we imported materials from there. There must be markets to be had in the free countries of Europe. If there are trawlers from every country in Europe around our coasts, is that not positive evidence that they have not got fish themselves, that they cannot get fish in their own country because the fishbanks have been fished dry long ago?

I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I want to make a further suggestion. I feel there should be a greater concentration on harbours. We have not hesitated to spend large sums of money on many things over the years that have not been very productive. Why not spend some of it on our fishing harbours? We cannot expect fishermen to put money into purchasing boats if there is a risk of those boats being destroyed by disadvantageous weather. There are very few deepwater harbours in Ireland. In my own county, there are no deepwater harbours of any sort that are protected on all sides against the weather.

On numerous occasions, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and members of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have come to Wexford, as I am sure they have come to other parts. They have discussed the problems at length. They have had representations put before them and evidence shown to them of fishing boats that have been wrecked from time to time. They have also had evidence of fishermen who have sold out and emigrated for the want of a protective harbour. Surely it is possible to give such an important matter earnest consideration.

It is a good thing that we have a Minister for Fisheries. I have always felt that that industry is important enough to have a Minister and I am sure this Minister will do his best to develop it. I only hope he will take due note of the many suggestions that have been made to him here. It is no use suggesting that one side of the House or the other is responsible for the condition of fisheries. The truth is that in the 30 odd years of native Government, no Government has given sufficient attention and consideration to it. It is a great avenue of advancement and I hope we will go ahead and use it to the best advantage.

Mr. Corry

I agree with what Deputy McQuillan has said here—it is what I have always been anxious for—that, next to agriculture, fisheries should be our greatest industry. Quite frankly, I approach it to-day with a feeling of absolute despair. An Estimate is presented here to us and the only increase in that Estimate is one of £700,000 for the salary of the officials. There is a reduction of one-third in the balance of the total Estimate.

Up to now—and this is no way personal to the Minister—bad and all as both sides of the House were, we had some politician responsible for fisheries, whether he was a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary. To-day, even though the present Minister may be a superman, we have only one-third of a man in charge of fisheries. Nobody could persuade me that one man can take charge of the Department of Lands, the Forestry Branch and the Fisheries Branch. At the same time, the bluff is being worked by politicians that fish is our second greatest industry. If that is the view put forward, while this industry is to occupy the spare time of the Minister who is also the Minister for Lands as well as being in charge of Forestry, all I have to say is that they might bluff people in here, but they will not bluff the people down the country.

Unfortunately, the laws of fisheries are laws which have been handed down from a pretty bad generation. You will not improve them now by endeavouring to protect the fish for certain classes of the community. The farmer down in the Fermoy area who is paying annuities and rates for the bed of his river has no power to take the fish out of it. That power is reserved. Such a farmer will continue to poach and all I have to say to him is God bless him. That is a relic of the old days. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Bartley, referred to fishing licences. I had Deputy Bartley with me in Youghal, as I had Deputy Oliver Flanagan, when he was Parliamentary Secretary. There is a £4 fishing licence and there is the extra 2d. per lb. levy on salmon exports. Is the House aware that, under an edict of Queen Elizabeth, the Duke of Devonshire collects in this Republic of Ireland from Irish Republican fishermen for fishing in Irish Republican waters £16 a year per man?

I am blamed at times for endeavouring to protect the fishermen. Where there are ancient laws that are unjust and that have never been amended, it is no wonder that there is poaching. I am definitely opposed to the allocation of money for the purpose of conservancy, while these unjust laws are in operation and while the farmer has to pay in rates and annuities for the river bed and Lord Methuselah comes over for a couple of months every year with his rod and line to collect what is in the river.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I fear the change the Deputy desires would require legislation and the Deputy may not advocate legislation on the Estimate.

Mr. Corry

I am suggesting that it is high time that something was done in connection with the Estimate. We are allocating money for conservancy to protect the rights of those people. I am saying that that money should not be so allocated.

Perhaps the Minister would tell the House the number of cwt. of salmon that were forked out in the trap used by the Duke of Devonshire in Lismore last year. They were forked out with a four-pronged fork. That is a new way of doing it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now advocating legislation. I have already pointed out that the Deputy may not do so on the Estimate.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

This matter was deemed to be relevant last year. It is a very important matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It may be very important, but it is not in order on the Estimate.

Mr. Corry

These are the matters that concern us. My reason for objecting to State money being allotted to conservancy is that this money is used to protect certain interests. It is useless to develop inland fisheries and to make them more prosperous while these unjust laws to which I have referred are in operation. I do not intend to pay rent and rates for the bed of a river for some other person to make money out of the fish in it, not while I have a way of getting fish also.

The Minister in his opening statement told us that we should have the necessary harbours and shore installations to handle the growing catch of our fleet and indicated the necessity for a long term plan of harbour development. I would respectfully suggest that any plan would be too long. I laugh when I hear of long term plans, five year plans and two year plans. I think Deputy Bartley was the first whom I succeeded in interesting. Deputy Bartley came to Ballycotton in 1951 and he definitely informed the fishermen there that there would be two deep-sea boats in Cork, one at Ballycotton, the other at Schull. Deputy Oliver Flanagan came to us as Parliamentary Secretary and he continued the plan, although, to give credit where it is due, he gave us an ice-plant so that we could hold the fish for some time. The fact remains that every Minister has talked about long term plans. Planning seems to be all that the Department is doing. Let us have results. I do not believe you can get results where the Minister has to deal with lands and forests and to cope with fisheries in his spare time. It is a joke.

I want to know when the pier in Ballycotton will be extended and protection afforded for the boats there. When Deputy Bartley was down there, he was informed that no additional boats could be brought in there owing to the conditions. He was informed that the young men in the village would have to emigrate. There was no room for any more boats. When Deputy Flanagan came down, he was told the same thing. I remember the first time Deputy Bartley came down. Our county surveyor was present with the plans for an extension of the pier. The plans are still there. What is the Department going to do about them? That is what my constituents want to know; that is what they are entitled to learn.

If I might go a little further, we have here £34,000 for Fisheries. One would expect that in a Department where high salaries are paid, there would be somebody who could give advice. I read in the Irish Press this morning about some fish farm here in Dublin having sold 200 trout yesterday on the Dublin market at 4/6 per lb., and it was indicated that they would have a couple of thousand of them next time. There is an old story that all the wise men came from the East, and down in East Cork we have a man who had a similar sort of brainwave. He thought he would like to go into this fish business, and he wrote to the Department for advice, and got it. Here it is:—

"Fisheries Branch,

Dublin.

A Chara,

With reference to your letter of 30th April, 1957, I am directed by the Minister for Lands to suggest that you will obtain the information you require regarding stocking ponds with fish in the book entitled Ponds and Fish Culture for Pleasure and Profit by Major C.B. Hall, D.S.O., published by Faber and Faber Limited, 24 Russell Square, London.

I am to enclose for your information copies of Fisheries Leaflets Nos. 1 and 2 regarding Salmon and Trout.

Mise, le meas."

That letter was sent to Mr. K. P. Connell, 46 Main Street, Midleton, County Cork.

Do not interrupt me: you will get a chance to fight your corner.

Deputy Esmonde spoke about going behind the Iron Curtain. We import from Japan each year goods to the value of £1,600,000, of which something like £400,000 is canned fish. In exchange for that the Japanese buy from us £140,000 worth. That is the way we are balancing our adverse trade. Is it not queer to bring into this country annually over £800,000 worth of fish— into Twenty-Six Counties practically surrounded by water? What is wrong? Neither Deputy Bartley nor Deputy O.J. Flanagan put their fingers on what is wrong. They said people were buying canned salmon. That is not the entire story. What is really wrong is that no fish is made available in the towns of this country. In fact, there is no fish made available anywhere in this country except on the pierheads.

In Ballycotton a few years ago I met Deputy Flanagan, when he was Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Fisheries Section, and brought him to a gentleman of his political persuasion. We discussed the position in regard to the transport of fish from Ballycotton to Cork. He did not succeed in solving the problem. The only method by which a few boxes of fish could be "lugged" up from Ballycotton to Cork was by hiring of a five-ton C.I.E. truck. Yet there was a pickup truck on the spot in Ballycotton, but its owner would have been prosecuted had he helped to transport the fish.

That is what is wrong. That is why one cannot get a bit of fish on a Friday in Midleton, a town only about eight miles from Ballycotton. If you go to the market in Cork and have a look at the fish boxes there, you will not be long finding out that the fish has been in Dublin first. It is only fish that the Dublin people refuse to buy that come back to the Cork fellows. It is the unfortunate fellow who ultimately buys the fish who pays for its transport from Schull to Dublin in the first instance and then back from Dublin to Cork.

There should be some system organised by means of which fish caught at any Irish port could be immediately transported to the nearest town for sale. It is because there are no such means of making fish readily available that we are paying the Japanese nearly £500,000 a year for canned fish. Go into any hotel in Ireland and you will not find a bit of fish on a Friday. Midleton is only a few miles from Ballycotton. The same applies to Fermoy and Mallow. Yet in none of these towns is it possible to get fresh fish on Friday.

I could feel quite sure Deputy M.P. Murphy could name 20 towns in West Cork in which the same conditions prevail. There is plenty of demand for fresh fish if it is exposed for sale in anything like a palatable condition. But anybody looking at the wreck exposed in the Cork market, after it has arrived back from Dublin where it was rejected, would be turned against fish for the rest of his life. This fish was sent from Cork to Dublin in the first instance.

Mr. Carty

The only return ticket ever taken out at Cork.

Mr. Corry

Do not draw me. Those are the conditions that obtain in regard to this industry. There is no hope for the industry unless there is a proper marketing system. We have been informed that this Estimate was prepared by the former Minister.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Why did the present Minister not amend it?

Mr. Corry

It was prepared by Deputy James Dillon who hates fish even on a Friday. This Estimate, providing for increases in salaries, could still be cut by 33? per cent. It is only two-thirds of last year's Vote.

The Minister is charged with administering fisheries in the Twenty-Six Counties and we have a right to know why these lakes and rivers are reserved, long stretches of rivers and many lakes in the State. I maintain, and I hope, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that every citizen has equal rights under the Constitution. If a citizen gets the relevant licence to fish in any of these lakes or rivers in which vested interests are concerned I maintain that the right should be given to him under the Constitution to fish them. I maintain that the State should not determine that a citizen has no right whatever, even though he is provided with the necessary licence. I shall not refer to the matter further now but I hope to bring it before the House again in the very near future unless some changes are made.

It is no use for the Minister to say: "I hope you will convey that to Northern Ireland." I cannot see any relevance in this remark of the Minister other than it is an indication that he will continue the policy during his term of office of doing nothing in regard to the matter. It is a question that many people in the country cannot understand. It is only right and fitting that it should be mentioned here in Parliament but having regard to your ruling I shall not discuss the matter further, much as I should like to go into more detail. I received a good deal of correspondence from people throughout the country on that subject owing to some remarks I made on it previously.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be discussing it fully.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am closing on it now. Coming from a constituency where fishing is the sole livelihood of a large number of people and where it is helping to advance the interests of other sections of the people, I am closely interested in the development of fishing. I wish the Minister, seeing that he is only a short time in office, every success in endeavouring to improve fishing. As far as I am concerned and, indeed, I can say as far as the House is concerned, we all wish any Minister in charge of this important industry the best of luck in trying to develop it and in trying to help people who have to adopt that way of life to eke out a livelihood.

I am not at all satisfied that the men at the top, the Minister and the Department officials, are going the best way about the required improvement of the fishing industry. Time and again during the discussion on this Estimate we have made several important points that were accepted by many Deputies. The first is the provision of better boats for fishermen; the second is the provision of more adequate protection for the people who man these boats and the third is desired improvements for harbours and slips. I think the most important of all is the better distribution of fish and I am glad to note that a good deal of attention has been focussed on this vital question by a number of Deputies who contributed to this discussion.

I think that the provision of better boats is a first essential. We have the unfortunate position that we have first-class fishermen who are brought up in that way of life, who know all that is to be known about it, but unfortunately they, or a number of them banded together, have not the wherewithal to put down the 10 per cent. deposit towards the cost of a new boat. While I am not advocating that these people should get boats for nothing, I do advocate that where the Department is satisfied, and where the Fishery Board is satisfied, that these people know their business and that they are honest, conscientious workers, they should get the boats, so to speak, on their own surety.

They should then be asked to make a contribution yearly from the revenue derived from the boats. If they should fail in any way to honour their obligations, the Minister or the board could give themselves the power of withdrawing the boat from them. From the fishermen I know, I doubt if the Minister would have any need to exercise that power. I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to that fact. It must be borne in mind that the price of a boat which is in any way suitable is round about the £8,000 figure. That is the minimum figure.

It is exceedingly difficult for the fishermen whom I know—I am sure the same applies to the fishermen all around the coast—to get the required £800. I believe the board has had little difficulty in collecting the dividends from the boats which they have distributed throughout the State. If the percentage were lowered or done away with altogether it would be of marked advantage to a number of our fishermen who have to continue at present with boats that are most unsuitable.

Despite the hard and honest work the fishermen put into their fishing, the fact remans that by having these boats their catches are bound to be reduced and their incomes diminished. I should like to ask the Minister together with his principal advisers to go into this whole question and rectify the matter when satisfied that the fishermen in question have all the necessary technical qualifications. It would be of general benefit to the country and would be bound to improve our general economy.

The second matter I mentioned was the improvement of harbours and slips. We have not made any great headway in that direction. As mentioned by previous speakers, we hear during the annual discussion on the Estimate much talk about a long-term policy and plans to improve the harbours and piers. We know very little comes from these so-called plans. I should like to see the Minister lay out a given sum each year much in excess of what is allocated for desired improvement to harbours and slips which undoubtedly is essential if we are to improve our fisheries as we ought to.

Some time ago, I advocated here the extension of the three mile limit. It was referred to in this discussion by Deputy Esmonde as well. I understand that the extension of the limit is determined by some international court in Holland. I should like if the Minister would mention in his reply what the present position is in regard to any representations made with a view to getting the three mile limit extended. Undoubtedly, it would be of great advantage to have it extended. The unfortunate position is that our fishermen are unable to fish fully around our own coats not to speak of interfering with the fishery grounds of other nations. Having regard to the fact that we are not trespassing on the fishing grounds of other countries, we have a reasonably good case for the extension of the three mile limit.

As the Minister is aware, I have made representations for more protection for our fishing boats in West Cork. There is a very extended mileage of coast along that area. We have possibly the longest coastline of any maritime constituency in this country. Along that coastline there are many suitable harbours and inlets of the sea. Fishermen have made representations to secure better protection for them.

There is no need for me to remind the Minister or the House of the hardships some of these people suffered during recent months when their gear was damaged by foreign trawlers from Spain and France. Not only did these trawlers cause damage extending to more than £400 in at least one case, but they also caused a good deal of consequential loss because, due to the loss of the nets and whatever fish they contained, these fishermen were unable to get back into action again for some time. The difficulty is that they suffered serious losses in regard to replacing their nets. These men are very honest men. They have not a great deal of the world's goods. They are not very well-to-do and any replacements they have to make they must secure them on the credit system which makes it more difficult for them.

I understand from the Minister that there is no law by which he could compensate them. I should like to know from the Minister, and possibly from the Minister for External Affairs, whether it is feasible to make representations to the owners of these boats in France and Spain where the owners are identified with a view to securing compensation from them. If it is not the duty of the Minister for Fisheries, it is certainly the duty and the function of the Minister for External Affairs to help these people, where the craft which damaged the fishermen's boats was identified, in order to try to get compensation from the owners of these boats in France and Spain. I hope the Minister will use his good offices with the Minister for External Affairs in that respect as I believe these fishermen have made representations to the owners in France and Spain with a view to securing some compensation for the damage caused to their boats.

I should like to reiterate the need for more adequate protection for our fisheries in the South Cork and West Cork area. Deputy Dr. Esmonde had a suggestion to make. He pointed out the desirability of using the three German boats in that respect. While I am not competent to say whether that is wise or unwise, I think the Minister should take some steps to provide more adequate protection.

I live in Schull, 230 miles from the City of Dublin. Every week in Schull an average of seven or eight lorries of fish are landed at the pier adjacent to my home. Every fish so landed in Schull is marketed in Dublin. The lorries leave in the night time around seven or eight o'clock and arrive on time in Dublin for the market on the following morning. The same applies to the fish landed in Baltimore, Castletownbere and the other fishing centres in West Cork. I am doubtful if the need arises for fishermen to send their fish 230 miles to Dublin which is involving a total lorry journey of 460 miles. The Minister can appreciate what that lorry journey means in pounds, shillings and pence. If it happened that the fishermen had not a favourable catch and that, on a particular night, they had only half a lorry load they would still have to send that half lorry load to Dublin just the same as when they would have a complete lorry load.

As several Deputies have stated, the distribution of fish is a very important question. It is one to which the Minister could address himself in a very capable manner because there is a good deal of room for improvement. Starting off from my county to Dublin you pass through several fairly thickly populated towns. You go through Dunmanway, Bandon, Cork, Fermoy, Cahir, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Carlow and a number of other such populous centres. If a fish distributing centre could be established in some of these towns it would supply the area around it. Such a centre would be of advantage to the town by providing an opportunity to the people to procure fresh fish and it would also be an advantage to the fishermen who would not have to travel such long journeys with consequent expense.

I understand that the fish which these people send from Schull, Castletownbere, Bantry and other centres in my constituency of West Cork is transported all over the country and possibly some of it reaches as far as Cork City again. As a member of the Cork Mental Hospital Board and the Youghal Mental Hospital Board, I was surprised to learn that these two institutions which have a population of 3,000 persons are supplied with fish from Dublin. I believe that the fish supplied to these two institutions is caught off County Cork, transported to Dublin and then transported back again to these two institutions and for purchases by other persons in the Cork area.

It may be held that this is a matter to which the fishermen and possibly the fishing agents should give more attention. It is difficult for the fishermen to do much about the distribution of fish. The State and the responsible Ministers should take up the matter more forcibly and establish fishing centres in the more populous towns throughout the country.

The Minister can understand the undesirability of transporting fish as much as 230 miles from Schull, 240 odd miles from Castletownbere, and so forth, to Dublin and transporting it back again. If he promotes the establishment of fish distribution centres in some of our more populous inland centres he will have the blessings of the fishermen. It will mean a greater income to them if he can devise a plan, with the help of the board, to set up these distributing centres.

In his opening statement, the Minister mentioned additional staff. As reported at column 270 of the Official Report, Volume 162, No. 2, he said:—

"With regard to administration, the amount required, £32,630, shows a net increase of £4,200 over 1956-57. Salaries are higher due to fact that six additional staff members had to be employed, normal increments fall due, and, consequent upon a staff salary arbitration award, an additional sum of £2,502 falls to be paid."

What work are these six extra staff members doing? Apparently, the board has not, up to the present, extended its operations very much. Seeing that these six additional members have come on the staff for some purpose, could the Minister utilise their services by endeavouring to provide the much-needed amenity of fish distributing centres in the towns I have mentioned? It is only right that the Minister should give us some more detailed information or elaborate on his statement about the six additional staff members. The general feeling at present is that we have too many people on Civil Service and local authority staffs. Therefore, when additional staff is recruited by any Minister or any Department, I think it should be made quite clear why that step was necessary.

Mr. Lindsay

When dividing the moneys allocated to Departments, to the administrative side and the operating side, I think people are sometimes inclined to forget that where progress is being made administrative costs must, of necessity, increase. I am satisfied that progress is being made in our fishing industry. It may well be argued, with, indeed, a great degree of truth, that that progress is not as great as it might be and is not moving as rapidly as it ought. By and large, when we come to examine all the implications of an industry such as this, with its great potential, I think we are confronted with the fact that an insufficient amount of money is being made available for its promotion. That could be due to two things. It could be due to an insufficient amount of interest, administratively, or it could be due—and this is the more likely one—to a general shortage of money to cover all State contingencies.

I always regard it as a matter of regret, politically, that agriculture, fishing, tourism—any of these things that are great national concerns— should be made the subject matter of political controversy, as a general rule. There will be particular instances where people will differ very sharply on matters of detail but, on the broad subject of agriculture, of fishing and of all the other avocations so vital to our economic survival, I think it is a matter of regret that there should be division of opinion for political purposes alone.

Accordingly, I am inclined to the view that the too-rapid changing of policies can have a very seriously deterrent effect on the progress of any particular Department. For that reason, I am in full agreement with the present Minister, or with the Minister of any Department, when he says that planning, and planning over a defined and sufficiently lengthy period, is essential before not alone progress can be achieved, but before an assessment can be made of any progress with a view to further reassessment later on.

Deputies have made quite a number of suggestions, all of which, I am sure, will be given due consideration by the Minister and his advisers. Two matters have been mentioned in the course of the debate. One was mentioned by Deputy McQuillan and is in relation to Northern Ireland vessels being prevented from fishing off our coasts. I do not know whether I am right or not, but I think the answer to that is extremely simple. At present, it is possible for any British or Scottish-owned vessel to be registered in any port in Northern Ireland, and thus, if there was freedom of action for that portion of the Northern Ireland coast, you could have people of Scottish and British origin using our coast. As I said, there is a difference of opinion and it is probably being used more for political purposes rather than from a desire to put forward a suggestion which might ameliorate the fishing situation generally or make for progress in that industry.

Then, you have the annual references to people who have privately owned fisheries which are protected by boards of conservators or by themselves. In my view, until such time as the State is in a financial position to do so, and that it would be a matter of good policy also to take over these fisheries, vast in money value, I think we should not say anything about them at all. Nobody would urge private ownership or local ownership as quickly as I would. At the same time, one must take a strong view in respect of property which is legally owned by the particular owners of the time. As I said, until the time arrives when it is, first of all, a matter of policy, and, secondly, when we have the financial resources to take them over, it would be far better not to make this a subject of criticism that has no real economic foundation.

I noticed this morning that Deputy Corry has completely dispelled that idea of unanimity in the Government Party in this matter of Fisheries, which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Bartley, was so extremely anxious to establish last night. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce was very cross last night. I do not think he was really very cross with anybody on this side of the House. I think he was claiming specially to defend himself against the implication in the Minister's speech as to whether the purchase of these German trawlers —or as the Parliamentary Secretary referred to them "the so-called German trawlers"—was good or not.

The Minister said in his opening remarks in this debate—and I think said courageously—that a decision would have to be reached as to whether these trawlers were to be kept in employment or disposed of. The very definite implication is there, having regard to the surrounding references, to the decreasing value of the catches and to the ever increasing amount of time in which these particular trawlers seem to be laid up for want of repairs due to defective or failing engines or other causes. I had no strong views one way or another against the purchase of these trawlers at that particular time. When you consider the size of the Vote towards the industry as a whole a purchase such as this, which exceeds £50,000, must be considered substantial. Any purchase exceeding £50,000 must be considered substantial, but it is particularly so in this case.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave us his reasons. He said they were to be purchased for protection and to be used as training ships to go far away into the deep. I do not think he convinced the House, at least to any adequate degree, that, prior to their purchase, he had any knowledge that they were to be used for protection or that they would be useful for protection. Neither had he any knowledge, apart from some sort of vague notion, that they could be used as training ships, because the simple fact of the matter was that they could not get anybody to train on them. Even on his own admission last evening, he told us they could not even get anybody here to act as skippers, except one Irish person for one of them. An Englishman skippered the other and the third is being skippered by a German.

In any event, the Minister has courageously said that a decision must be reached in regard to these trawlers. From my own limited knowledge of them it would appear that they have given a lot of trouble, have been an immense cost, comparatively, by way of repairs and that the catches landed by them have not been commensurate with the cost of their purchase or their maintenance since they were purchased. There may be something in what Deputy Dr. Esmonde said about their use as protection vessels. It is something that should be examined. Certainly, if they are not useful or sufficiently remunerative as fishing vessels, it may be possible to use them in that way.

While I say that and while I urge the examination of the suggestion to use them as protection vessels, I should not like it to go from the House that there is any positive suggestion that the corvettes are not doing very good work in that regard. I have personal experience of where, on very short notice, off the Mayo coast, a corvette was extremely successful in tracking down a poacher inside our territorial waters, and not alone a poacher, but one which was damaging the nets of the people operating near the shore and craft generally. The simple fact of the matter is that there are not enough corvettes to protect a long coast such as ours, and if they can be supplemented in any way, that is all to the good.

Changing times and changing tastes, changing methods of movements of people, changing degrees of speed in that movement, all contribute, in my opinion, to changes in any particular industry. The Minister, in his opening speech here, talked about education directed towards fishing as a vocation. With that I am in full agreement, but it is not new. I have here extracts from the First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Irish Fisheries in 1836. Under the heading "Summary of Remedial Measures", the last paragraph reads:—

"A practical education in the manufacture of nets and in other fishery avocations, to be adopted in the national schools of the maritime districts of Ireland."

Suggestions do not appear to change; the application of remedies appears to be slow.

It is very interesting, too, to recall, in reference to the report of that date, the state of fisheries in Ireland around that time. It will come as a surprise, I am sure, to people to know that in the year 1830 there were 64,771 persons directly employed in fishing. In addition to that, 11,000 more were employed as coopers, sail makers and sail repairers; and, of course, in the making and repair of nets. In that year 1830 there were over 13,000 fishing boats, of all kinds. That Commission of Inquiry was set up by the then British Government to try to give a fillip to Irish fishing on the same basis as they had done with Scottish fishing around 1808.

The system of bounty was introduced. The Commissioners were empowered to lend money to fishermen towards the provision of craft and fishing equipment. In passing, I might say that in this Report which they presented in 1836—the Commission was set up in 1819—the total moneys lent by them to the Irish fisher folk of the day was £163,000. That was a lot of money 120 years ago. In submitting their report they said that they were glad to be able to say that the percentage of bad debts due to them from the fishermen did not reach 1 per cent. They regarded it as a magnificient tribute to the honesty of Irish fisher folk.

A propos of that, Deputy Michael Murphy has talked about the difficulty that the 10 per cent. deposit now provides for persons purchasing or being allocated to purchase one of these £10,000 or £12,000 boats. I have always suggested—I have made the point before during the tenure of the Government of which I was a member —that there would be circumstances and there would be areas and there would be men of such technical skill in this business, which would warrant the waiving of the deposit—not entirely, the whole purchase would have to be paid back—but the waiving of that deposit in a particular instance. However, I am quite certain that there has been no falling off in the financial morality of the people since 1836, and I see no reason why, if they were trusted then by the occupying Government of this country, they should not be trusted now by our own.

As a result of the moneys being lent, in the year 1846 you will find an extraordinary increase in these numbers. I said that the number of boats was 13,000 odd in the year 1830. In 1846 the number of fishing boats of all kinds had increased to 20,000; and between men and boys, there were 113,600 at work in the industry. Then, of course, the Famine came, with its consequent effects on population, but in spite of the fact that the population of this country was so regrettably and unfortunately, considerably reduced at that time, in the year 1880 the number of boats was 5,500 and the number of men and boys was 23,000. Of course the character of fishing changed in the intervening time and all down the years until finally about 1928 or 1929 our principal export markets for herring and mackerel went to Germany and the United States of America.

Everybody knows that Germany instituted its own fishing fleet and the United States for a variety of reasons discontinued the purchase of our fish. About 1928 or 1929 all that happened and I think it was that general resulting slump and unemployment which probably prompted the Government of the day to start the Irish Sea Fisheries Association. That was the predecessor of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Each organisation, in my opinion, has justified itself.

I am not concerned with who set up this board or that board, who thought out this scheme or the other scheme— provided they work well towards the achievement of the ideals for which they were created. I do not know sufficient about the vested interests, as they have been referred to, in fishing in this country, to be able to say with any degree of accuracy, or indeed veracity, that those vested interests are an impediment to progress generally either by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara or the people who operate under it. I do know that when the representatives of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara first attempted to establish their corner in the Dublin market and started to operate there, they met with very severe opposition. They succeeded in getting over that opposition and are now operating there.

What is the position now? The latest figures that I can get—possibly there are later ones—are for around 1954 and Deputies will recall the other figures which I gave. In 1954, there were about 1,725 men employed full time in fishing and 7,606 employed part time. There were 2,638 boats full time —that figure does not appear to me to be too accurate and I am subject to correction with regard to it—539 boats part time and 632 boats which do not work at all. There we have an extraordinary situation of boats which do not work and which, I take it, are capable of being made seaworthy and at the same time people clamour for new boats. I suppose the answer is to be found in the fact that the boats which do not work are more or less outdated and have not got the equipment which the very excellent boats now being turned out by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have.

On that question, while these 56-foot boats, which are based around the coast—I think the principal fleet is around the Aran Islands and Galway— are very commendable and desirable, I still think that the smaller boat should not be forgotten. Before the change of Government, there was a scheme whereby such a smaller boat would be made available to the man or men in districts where harbour facilities were not available for the big boats. A boat cost approximately £1,000; there was no deposit for it; and it was given on a "pay-as-you-earn" system.

I sincerely hope that that programme will be continued. It is essential to continue it, in my view, for this reason, that it will be a long time before the harbour facilities along our coast are adequate for the safe anchorage and shelter of the bigger boats. During the intervening time, it will be necessary to have the smaller boats; indeed, it may be necessary to have the smaller boats always in order to keep alive the people's interest in the fishing industry.

Comment has been made on the inability to obtain fish in country towns, principally in midland towns and in towns not very far from the sea. Of course, that must be accepted as a fact. Not alone will you not find the fish in the midland towns, except on Friday, and then not invariably, but it is also true to say that you cannot get fish even in the coast town. For that reason, I think our first objective should be to develop the home market and to develop it we must bring about a change of attitude in the minds of the people towards fish.

Fish has come to be recognised, whether we like it or not, as the dish of hunger, the dish associated with the people who cannot afford meat. It is also associated with what might be called penitential abstinence, thus providing a sort of excuse for people to regard fish as something that must be eaten whether it is liked or not on a particular day or days. Apropos of that, it must be well known to everybody that that cannot be strictly denominational or sectional, having regard to the fact that Queen Elizabeth in her day set up two fast days every week in order to give a fillip to the British industry. I am sure if Deputy Corry were here and heard that, he would be able to produce a title for another book.

As I was saying about the change of attitude on the part of the people, that change can be brought about, I suggest, by a variety of operations. The first I suggest is the setting up of central market depots which would make the fresh fish readily available near where it is landed. In that way, the cost would be reduced, as I think it must be, having heard from Deputy Murphy that a lorry has to do 460 miles with fish from Schull to Dublin and back again. There is something wrong with that system, though I cannot see quite what is wrong with it. It is possibly being done for a purpose; perhaps it is an experimental stage, something which An Bord Iascaigh Mhara hopes to get over as time goes on.

That we are not a fish-eating people is a fact. I have here some figures collated by the Food and Agriculture Organisation in the preparation of a fish consumption estimate for 1949. Apart from Switzerland, Turkey and Austria, we consume less fish per head annually than any other country in Western Europe. It is estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organisation that we consume annually only 5 kilos per head, whereas Britain, with about 16 or 17 times our population, consumes 23.7 kilos per head annually, or almost five times as much. I do not think lack of boats, lack of gear or anything else is responsible for that position. There is a certain attitude of mind and it is an attitude of mind that will have to be conquered.

There was a publicity campaign inaugurated some time ago when we were holding an Irish Fish Week. If that publicity campaign is not in operation still, then it should be, and there should be far more intensive advertising, both through the medium of the Press and the radio.

As well as having central marketing we shall, in my opinion, also require mobile units for the sale of fish. It should be as simple and certainly as profitable for An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, or the responsible administration of this industry, to distribute fish in refrigerated lorries as it is for the ice-cream people to operate in the most remote parts of the country, to say nothing of the employment that such a service would give.

References have been made to Gaeltacht areas. Deputy Wycherley said they were pampered. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce made the point that these areas had not got any preferential treatment. With that view I am inclined to agree. On a proportionate basis, I do not believe the people in these areas got anything more than that to which they were entitled. It is true that there is a scheme for Fíor-Ghaeltacht boats. That was the first real effort made to come to the assistance of the people in these areas.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce was in charge of Fisheries in 1952 when a particular enactment was passed here. He will keep me right, because I speak from recollection, as to whether there is a provision in that enactment empowering the Minister to make a by-law preventing or precluding large craft from fishing near the coast. That has caused some concern in Killala Bay, around Enniscrone, to the people engaged in fishing flat fish near the shore. They complain that large craft sweep in, cast their nets and ruin everything. That complaint is not being made about Spanish or French trawlers. It is being made about Donegal trawlers coming down from Killybegs. An inquiry was held before last Christmas into this matter, but so far there does not appear to have been any result. While I do not urge that people with large craft should be penalised in any way, if it is necessary to penalise them in the interests of the smaller man, steps will have to be taken in that direction. I do not think it involves any very great penalty to insist that these craft, suitably equipped for deeper waters, must leave the small man alone.

We have a great tradition of the sea in song and story. One finds references everywhere to our navigational exploits. It is true that one can hardly find any ship in either the British Navy or the British merchant fleet in which there is not at least one Irishman. Even on the steam trawlers engaged in fishing one will find Irishmen. It is obvious then that if the facilities were there for those people at home, some of them at least would probably operate at home. Reference was made to the fact that the fishermen here are losing interest. Quite recently, I visited Helvick in Waterford. A fishing boat came in there and on that boat I saw a crew of five and I do not believe that any one of that crew was over 25 years of age. There is, therefore, a response from the youth in that area. I can state that there is also a response in my own area, but they have not got the facilities there for deep sea fishing. For the most part, they engage in fishing lobster and crayfish.

That brings me to the important matter of harbour facilities. I am pleased to note that the Minister intends to take an interest in this matter and that he does not intend simply to make a recommendation and leave it there. It is amazing how long it takes to get the simplest pier or slip erected. There is one sanctioned at the moment for Blacksod. Blacksod is extremely important because of increasing activity there in fishing for lobster and crayfish. For these fish there is a very remunerative market in France. The prices obtaining for these varieties of shellfish is something to which the Minister and his officials should devote themselves a little more assiduosly. They should, through our embassies abroad and through the embassies here, keep in touch to ensure that our interests on the markets on which we sell these shellfish will be looked after with the maximum care and attention.

It is an outstanding fact that we do import a considerable amount of tinned fish. I do not think that it is because the people prefer it, that it is easier to handle or prepare. I believe it is because fresh fish is not available to them. You will probably find people who would prefer tinned fish but the vast majority, in my opinion, would prefer to get the fresh fish.

In relation to our balance of payments situation, sufficient attention is not paid to the development of our fisheries. It is true that the character of the fishing industry is changing, that some people are veering towards bigger boats, and so on, but I am convinced—and I hope the Minister follows this up—that if the harbour facilities are fully promoted and advanced, as they should be, he would have far less trouble about the provision of money for boats. If people had those facilities of shelter and safe anchorage I know from personal experience that he would be amazed at the number of people who would be prepared to invest in craft and full equipment.

Enough has been said about this 2d. per lb. on the export of salmon. Apart from the principle, to which I object, there is another aspect of it which deserves some consideration. Where fishermen are employed by private owners and once a levy is imposed, it is all too frequently our experience that all such levies or imposts of taxation are passed on to the person least able to bear them and while this is a small amount it will, I am sure, be deducted from the earnings of the fishermen.

I would say the future of our fishing industry rests on three considerations. The very first is publicity towards making our people more fish conscious, all of which would have to be accompanied by that education of which the Minister speaks, special courses directed towards the preparation of fish and making it a dish to be desired. Secondly, the proper facilities ought to be provided, and thirdly, there should be sufficient boats and equipment.

By and large, however, the overall consideration must be given to the direction of the minds of our people towards fish as a food that is excellent, and the direction of our young people around the coasts towards the industry as a vocation in which they will make a reasonably good living. On the question of boats may I say that fishing is seasonal and boats should be uniformly equipped? The same type of engine should be installed. There should be the same type of nets, screws, and so on, and there should be centres where these things would be easily obtainable rather than have a boat out of commission for too long a period during the season.

While this is an Estimate prepared by the Department at a time when the Government of which I was a member was in office, I think it is not adequate and it shows that the effort directed towards the resuscitation of our fishing industry is not as serious as the situation warrants.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I want to wish the Minister for Lands and Fisheries good luck in his new position. Since I came into the House about 14 years ago I have been drawing attention to the condition of the harbours in County Dublin. Successive Governments have promised that they would look after the harbours there but they are still in a very bad way. I suggest to the Minister that he should exercise more control over these harbours for the pursuit of fishing. There are too many controlling the harbours, the Board of Works, Dublin County Council and the Port and Docks Board.

One urgent problem in County Dublin is the provision of facilities for large boats at Lough Shinny and Skerries. There is no worthwhile harbour in either of these places. Lough Shinny is no use for about ten months of the year and Skerries is too small because it has to accommodate coal boats, and so on. Boats have been damaged as a result of not having a proper harbour to come into. The best fishermen in Ireland are in North County Dublin but they are not getting the opportunity of carrying out their work as they would like to do it. I do not wish to delay the House. I shall leave it to another occasion to deal with other matters. I hope the Minister will look after the harbours first. We have the fishermen there and the boats.

Mr. Childers

This has been a most interesting debate. It would be quite impossible for me to deal with every point made by every Deputy but I can assure the House that all the suggestions that have been made by the various Deputies will receive full consideration. I shall deal with those points that seem to be of particular interest.

Deputy Lindsay asked whether we have power to make a by-law to prevent large vessels coming into the near coast. He mentioned this in connection with Killala Bay. The general powers under the Fishery Acts do enable the Minister to make such regulations from time to time as may be necessary for the preservation of the inshore fishing rights and for the maintenance of good order among fishermen. The decision has to be based on general scientific considerations, the need for expanding fish intake generally, at the same time having due regard to the interests of the local men concerned. Such decisions are frequently very difficult to make. Quite obviously, we need a general expansion of fishing development and, quite obviously, on occasions it may be to the ultimate advantage of the inshore fishermen to have some larger boats fishing within at least part of their waters if the result is to increase the amount of fish and to enable fishmeal plants and ice plants to operate economically so that they in their turn should have some benefit from the final result. Each case, naturally, is judged on its own merits.

Deputy Haughey asked why, although there was apparently a decrease in the Estimate of £21,800, this does not appear to be consistent with the figures given in the Estimate. The answer is that in the previous financial year there was a decrease in the amount actually paid in respect of one of the sub-heads, namely, in aid of development, i.e., £30,000, and the amount estimated was not reached. In fact, there was an economy representing £12,500 under that particular head of expenditure.

I should like to mention in that connection that I found on coming into office that there was a reduction in the Estimate of £21,000. There were no plans or suggestions whereby the Minister for Finance could provide more money. There was no suggestion that more money would be provided. I have been very glad to announce to the House that the Minister for Finance, in spite of his particular difficulties, has made £50,000 more available which will enable us to do a little in the coming year to develop our fisheries.

Deputy Dillon, in his usual way, tried to raise hares of every description, tried to spread rumours of my intentions in regard to fisheries. I do not know whether anybody pays attention to him any longer when he makes that kind of statement, but the fact is that the only effort to get outside the inshore waters and to study the possibility of fishing in the middle waters was made by the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of fisheries between 1951 and 1954, when he bought three trawlers here for experimental purposes and also for the purposes of catching increased quantities of fish. Apart from that, no real advance has been made at all in the general attitude towards our fishing for a very, very long time.

I should like to make it clear that I do not intend to have large foreign combines coming in here and trawling, using this country as a base, taking all the profit away from our financial accounts as a country. That, obviously, is not my intention in thinking of developing the export trade. Nor do I intend to buy steam trawlers which, for our purposes, would be, in any event, out of date. Nor do I intend to barter fish with certain countries for grossly expensive telegraph poles. If I disillusion Deputy Dillon about these matters, perhaps we can get down to the basic arguments.

Deputy Dillon suggested that we should as far as possible in any future development consider the type of boat owned by its skipper. In any future development such a possibility is within our competence. The Danish do middle water fishing with skipper-owned boats. So do other countries. We can adopt that method in deciding on development, or we might, for example, take Deputy Moloney's suggestion for co-operatively-owned fleets of boats and we might get people in a particular port to come together and subscribe to a boat. There are various alternatives, all of which will be considered.

Deputy Dillon also refferred to a training scheme. All I can say is that there are fewer fishermen in this country with the second-class type of certificate than there are in most other countries in Europe, that there is tremendous need for navigational training if we are ever to get beyond the inshore waters and if we are ever to rival other countries in fishing for the export trade. We hope to discuss with technical school authorities and to examine the whole question of technical education and so arrange for local schemes if at all possible, but that is all part of the long-term plan and we have first of all to consider what we can do to expand fishing in general, where we will go and what markets are available.

Another question was raised about the value of exploratory boats. As I said in my opening speech, we are the only nation in Europe that has a seaboard and that has not got exploratory boats. The British, for example, have five or six. Every single country seriously going in for fishing has boats which explore the fishing grounds, record the movement of the shoals, record the movement of cold-water currents, explore the sea beds, check and improve charts and do other valuable work.

It is impossible to expect a working fisherman to make the kind of records which are necessary if we are to have the full knowledge which is required by fishermen if they are to go out into middle waters. Many countries have very expensive marine biological stations to aid in this work.

I asked the officers of the Department what facilities we required if we were greatly to increase the intake of many classes of fish, from Norwegian lobsters to hake and to other types of fish, and I was told in every case that, not only did we need larger boats, but we also need exploration in order to find out the shoals, in order to reduce the time taken by fishermen to get out to the waters where the fish are most likely to be taken, in order to collate all the various reports of where the fish are available, in order to find fish which are not fished for at all by our fishermen, except in very, very small numbers, such as pilchard and sprats. There is a sprat fishery in Donegal, but the fishing of pilchard for example would be an entirely new branch of our fishing industry, related to the canning trade.

Another Deputy mentioned the danger of fishing over the herring spawning beds. That is one thing for which an exploratory boat would be most useful. We have some fear that already herrings are being taken in the spawning area, and unless we can have scientific investigation we cannot prevent the depletion of stocks that might occur through that being done. While I have admitted that the pattern of fishing development has shown very little change, with the exception of the one effort made by the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Bartley, through the purchase of the larger trawlers, I should make it clear that most of the main efforts in connection with fishing has been made by Fianna Fáil Governments. I do not want to over-stress that point because I feel it is necessary for us to go a great deal further.

Some Opposition Deputies seemed to imply that it was the Coalition Government who did this and that. As far as new activities are concerned, I want to hand to Deputy Dillon responsibility for the Inland Fisheries Trust for which I give him full credit. It was a good idea. It was he who initiated that. In regard to matters relating both to the control of our salmon fisheries and to the general laws governing inland fisheries, to the development of the early Sea Fisheries Association, to the new activities of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara such as the Gaeltacht Boat Scheme, the building of new types of depots, the initiation of icing plant, the initiation of the marketing, packeting and filleting of fresh and frozen fish, I want to say all these were initiated by Fianna Fáil.

Fianna Fáil, moreover, began the study of the harbours throughout the country and succeeded in getting a group of officials in the Board of Works to make a major study of harbour development. Fianna Fáil also initiated the first inter-Departmental Committee to try and reduce the appalling time taken from the initiation of a minor marine work to the carrying out of the proposal when finally sanctioned by the Minister for Finance. Though the time was slightly reduced there is still difficulty in getting co-ordination between all the authorities concerned.

Deputies seemed to need more information in regard to future policy for fishery development. I made it clear in my Estimate statement that we have never yet gone into the middle waters, that we have never developed a proper export trade except in regard to certain types of shellfish like lobster. I made it clear that there is a tremendous potential market and I should like now to give some more figures in regard to that.

There were in all 206,000 tons of fish taken in Irish waters by the vessels of the numerous countries who fish them. Of that weight, 10,700 tons were taken by Irish fishermen. That is the fundamental fact of our fishing position. The slow, the steady and welcome increase in the intake of fish in this country, the slow and steady increase in the number of full-time fishermen and in the number of boats operating, have no relation to the central problem which is that we take only 5.2 per cent. of the fish caught each year in Irish waters.

As I have said, however we managed to live without developing that side of our fishing previously, if we are going to be preserved as a nation, if we are going to restrict emigration, to find more employment, to increase the purchasing power of our people, we must get into the foreign market for fish. About 1,500 people are employed here at the moment as full-time fishermen. For every £1,000,000 worth of fish we could export to other countries, we could employ hundreds more not only in the fishing industry but in other spheres because for every £1,000,000 worth of fish we export we could provide employment in cloth weaving, in the making of processed foods, in the provision of boats through the increased economic activity provided.

Just to give some further information in relation to the fish that are caught off our coast, let us take cod as an example. Off the west coast of Ireland in a recent year the French took 468,000 kilos of cod. They took 721,000 kilos of cod off the south coast of Ireland. Take a fish like plaice which has a good value, which is profitable to fish. The French took in all 500,000 kilos from the west and south coasts of Ireland in one year. Take a fine fish such as sole. English fishermen took 167,000 kilos of sole from the southern coast of Ireland in a recent year. These tremendous catches of fish are being taken around our coast and, in the main, outside our territorial waters. These people are taking that fish because most countries in Europe are net importers of fish. There are plenty of markets available.

We have not yet explored the markets in order to find out how many of them could be profitable. To give some astonishing examples to stimulate people's minds, the Australians import as fresh and frozen white fish more than the whole of the Irish catch. Western Germany, the U.S.A. and Italy are importers of fresh and frozen fish. There is a growing scarcity of fish in the Mediterranean and a market in fish to be exploited there. Cured fish in large quantities are imported by Australia. Smoked cod is imported by Italy.

In fact, in general there are markets of every kind, culminating in the British market. In Britain they import over £5,000,000 worth of wet fish every year and £2,000,000 worth of fishmeal. There are about 20 different methods, most of them as yet unknown to us, of curing herrings for which there are big markets all over the world. We can expand still further exports of Dublin Bay prawn, lobsters and shellfish. I must make it clear that this is no easy problem. I made it evident in my Estimate speech that my policy is for long term development. First of all, we have to examine the markets and then see what kind of boats we should have. Then comes an entirely human question of seeing whether we can find men who wish to man the boats or whether we could change our entire habit of fishing from one of being exclusively inshore to one of fishing the middle waters around our coast. That is the central problem we have to face.

Do we want Irish vessels fishing around Ireland where go the Spanish, English and French vessels, or do we not? Are there people in Ireland who would like to train to earn their living that way? Can we accept as a sad fact that for one reason or another we are to remain an inshore fishing nation in which case we can develop steadily and do a little bit more export trade now and then, when opportunity avails, satisfy the requirements of the home market; persuade more people to eat fish in our own country; develop depots for fish throughout the country and proceed on those lines in the normal way, spending so many hundred thousand pounds each year in advances for boats and providing other amenities such as small improvements to harbours?

We can so proceed and there will be good work done but it has no relation to being able to catch some more of the 206,000 tons of fish that are caught in Irish fishing grounds of which we catch 5.2 per cent. In dealing with this matter we have to consider what ports should be developed; how many ports we can afford to develop and whether we will not have to concentrate on six or seven ports in order to provide the maximum of amenities in the shape of fishmeal plants, quick freeze plants and depots at convenient centres for transport and so forth.

We will have to ensure proper engine maintenance. We will have to train fishermen in the general upkeep of engines. We will have to secure people who are willing to accept training in navigational techniques and in fishing technique so that when the time comes, if the boats are available, there will be men to man them. We will have particular difficulty, if the scheme should succeed, in securing the first group of skippers among our own people because there are very few who have not emigrated who would be capable of undertaking voyages such as I have suggested. We will have to have curing facilities and all the other plants for processing the fish. We will need some kind of marketing organisation and all the co-operation of existing private interests in order to ensure that we can market the fish in an orderly way and that we can overcome in the same way as other countries have overcome the appalling difficulties that arise with gluts or extreme scarcities of fish when we may possibly lose our market.

That is the main problem and I need hardly say it will not be decided by the next Estimate. There is no question but that most countries in Europe are net importers of fish and there is no question that we should be able to develop fishing in middle waters provided the difficulties can be overcome and they are manifold. I should like the help of all Deputies in the House in considering this matter. I hope I will receive evidence that there are people all over the country who are willing to go into this new type of fishing because it is at least 80 per cent. a matter for initiative and enterprise on the part of our own people no matter what the Government can do. Whatever steps are taken in the Department or by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara very largely depend upon the individual initiative of the people throughout our maritime areas if we are to succeed in this venture.

The next point I had better deal with is the question of the salmon levy. I should make it clear that some ten out of 17 boards of conservators have already recommended the restoration of the salmon levy. I should also make it clear, if it is necessary to do so, that it is an entirely distinct levy and has no relation to the mythical cattle tax about which Deputy Dillon was talking. Deputy Dillon is well aware that the salmon fishing is administered through boards of conservators under a very complicated pattern of administration which was settled by various Acts of the Dáil and that sums of money are raised in a number of different ways to provide protection and development for the salmon fisheries.

We have to examine the whole problem in the light of what moneys we can obtain to ensure proper protection. A number of boards quite obviously could increase the number of water keepers employed. Some of the boards operate very successfully. In others there is an undesirable amount of poaching. The salmon export trade is vital to this country. I think the imposition of what is a very moderate levy indeed should add to the development of salmon fishing and I do not think that anybody will have cause to complain.

We need mobility among water keepers. We need to have a sufficient number of them and they must be properly paid. In some cases we need to improve facilities on the rivers. Boards of conservators are always looking for money for the removal of obstructions and other engineering developments. There are, I think, from ten to 11 rivers where there is no salmon flow because of engineering works required. All of that will have to have the attention of the Department and full co-operation with the boards concerned if we are to ensure that our salmon exports will increase, the value of which has varied between £400,000 and £500,000 per annum in the past few years.

Deputy Flanagan spoke about poaching and I entirely subscribe to his remarks. I recommend the sternest action with regard to poaching. The salmon industry is too valuable to laugh at. It is too valuable to take the view that poaching does not matter. Salmon must be preserved and developed and boards of conservators must act with the knowledge that their legal rights will be protected.

I have the utmost contempt for the attitude shown by Deputy Corry in regard to this whole question. All sections of the community have their human rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. I recommend that Deputy Corry should read the 1916 Proclamation when he talks about invading the rights of private individuals. The State naturally has the right at any time to take over the whole of the inland fisheries in this country on payment of compensation. There has been much discussion about that. A very excellent book has been written by Mr. J.P. Digby entitled Emigration in which he contrasted the present operation of the boards of conservators with the one and only alternative that the whole industry should be nationalised and placed under a central authority. All I can say is that nobody, having only four weeks' experience of the work in the Fisheries Branch, could begin even to comprehend all that is involved. My instinct, however, is that if we can continue with the present boards of conservators where every type of fisherman has his legal rights, where by-laws are newly passed and where they can be altered as a result of inquiries, where the comparative rights of nets men and rod anglers are duly preserved and fostered through the methods of election to the boards and where the State can contribute in the form of grants, where dues can be collected and where organised conferences can be held at which all the various views can be represented, I would prefer an elastic pattern of that kind to a central State administration if it can possibly be avoided.

I want to make it quite clear that I shall take no action to mitigate poaching offences. I want to make that quite clear to everybody so that nobody can say that people innocently poach. If there are people who happen to have large families, human responsibilities, that is a matter for the justice and the Minister for Justice to deal with. I want to tell those people they must know the law about poaching and, so far as I am concerned, I shall take an absolutely stern attitude towards any cases brought to me.

A number of Deputies spoke about the necessity for improving harbours. One of the first duties I have to perform is to re-examine the original project for investigating the improvement of harbours in the country, for making the development of certain harbours priority projects, for selecting harbours for development, knowing it will be utterly impossible with the finance available to improve all our harbours. Nothing could be more fatal to the interests of the inshore fisherman than that the Government should suddenly start to spend money on the large-scale improvement of many harbours in quick succession along the coast. I am quite certain from investigations in other countries and along the western coast of Scotland that both inshore and middle water fishing are developing in a definite pattern in which facilities such as quick-freeze plants, depots and fishmeal plants govern the number of harbours than can properly be developed. That is not to say that we cannot spend money where considered advisable on small marine works which are economic. However, it is evident we could hardly have more than six or seven major harbours in this country whether we continue to develop only inshore fishing or whether we expand and export fish to countries where a market exists for it.

Deputy Flanagan mentioned Bord na Móna and the deleterious effect of turf silt on the fisheries. It is essential to carry out research upon this problem. We have received some co-operation from Bord na Móna and we are hoping to discuss the whole problem with them again. The effect of insiltation is very serious upon fish ova but we hope it will be possible to create ponds where the silt may settle and to use other scientific methods to reduce the adverse effects of Bord na Móna activities. From what I know of the direction of that organisations, we should receive full consideration in the future.

Deputy Flanagan also asked about experiemental work for establishing oyster culture in Clew Bay. The experiments are continuing. As Deputies know, there is nothing more temperamental than an oyster. They like living gregariously.

Mr. Dillon

Except perhaps the Minister for Health.

Mr. Childers

There is a curious secretive attitude on the part of foreigners who are willing to give advice on almost everything else except on the culture of oysters. While we can get some advice, and we have experts in the Department, it may take some time before the establishment of the oyster beds in Clew Bay can be said to have finally succeeded.

Deputy Brennan said there were developments pending in County Donegal in regard to classes in the technical school in relation to the fishing industry. I hope Deputies in areas where there is a considerable amount of fishing will give their aid when requests are made for technical school classes. There is great need for education of this type and particularly for fishermen to become accustomed to engine maintenance. He asked if any training courses could be devised. All that has to be gone into but I imagine a good deal of any training instituted by the Department will have to be itinerant in character.

Deputy McQuillan asked about fishing signs. I have no direct power to intervene in that matter. All I can say is that where traditions exist for free coarse fishing and where at the same time one wants to encourage among visitors the idea that they should obtain permits for fine fishing, for game fishing, and where it is good to give the public in general the idea that fishing is organised and that an anglers' association exists which needs contributions, whether through licences which must be obtained or through voluntary contributions, it should be possible to have some sign which would not offend people in the district who live there and who always enjoyed free fishing but which at the same time would give to the tourists and those who come in from outside the feeling that this is an organised fishing area. I do not suppose it would be beyond Deputy McQuillan to think of some formula which would fulfil all those requirements. It should not be too difficult.

Mr. McQuillan

Is the Minister aware that signs are already being erected beside many inland lakes?

Mr. Childers

I was speaking of the signs erected and taken down in a certain area because of local objections.

Mr. McQuillan

They are in many other places besides that.

Mr. Childers

I mention now that there is a reasonable solution. The free fishing rights are not likely to be eliminated in coarse fishing. They are traditionally free in most areas. Occasionally there is an overlapping of interests which ought to be reconciled by intelligent co-operation between all the groups concerned.

Deputy Coogan mentioned the problem of the canal adjoining Lough Corrib and Lough Mask. I visited that area. It is obvious that if one could economically seal the swallow holes in that canal the improvement of the entire area for fishing would be enormous. In connection with the arterial drainage taking place, a number of problems arise relating to the fishing potential, as Deputy Coogan knows. The arterial drainage will have at least a very serious temporary effect upon spawning, particularly along the river and tributaries of the Corrib, from South Mayo. Various proposals have been made to deal with that. It is evident that some steps should be taken which would involve the maintenance of the fishing rather than the increase of the compensation to the person who would inevitably and rightly get the compensation.

A number of alternative proposals must be considered. I have been told by some experts that the cost of filling up the swallow holes along that canal, using a method of pressure pumping of concrete, would be enormous and would be more than could be considered possible. However, I intend to make further inquiries to see what can be done. Some people say there are not only the two important swallow holes, into which the water runs the whole length of the canal, but also some at the entrance, the Lough Mask entrance, that there are other difficulties such as the fall of water from one end of the canal to the other, and engineering problems of various kinds. The matter will certainly be examined with a view to finding a good solution, but I cannot guarantee as to what is likely to be done.

Deputy Moloney spoke of the development of the lobster trade and of other matters in relation to Kerry. I think I mentioned in the course of my Estimate speech that Dingle was one of the ports where there was a large intake of fish and every effort would be made to assist in the continued development of that port.

Deputy Corry spoke as though most of the fish coming to Cork were sent by Cork fishermen to Dublin and then returned to Cork. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara has a depot in Cork and I am advised that the return of fish from Dublin to Cork partly depends upon what happens when a fisherman has to decide where to send his fish. Some fishermen believe they will get a higher price in Dublin and send the fish to Dublin. If there is a surplus, it goes back to Cork. Some fishermen prefer to take their chance in Dublin and if their fish is bought by the wholesalers, those wholesalers may send it back to Cork.

We are establishing depots throughout the country for the handling of fish. There is a depot in Cork and there is to be one in Kilkenny and one in Longford. A Limerick depot operates and I am advised that they are marketing packed filleted fish in areas which were never reached before, such as Thurles, where there are two retailers. By the establishment of these depots it should be possible to prevent unnecessary transfer of fish from one area to another.

Some Deputies raised questions about territorial fishery limits. I have already indicated, in reply to a question, that there will be a conference in 1958 under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation where that whole matter will be discussed. I could not agree with one Deputy who recommended that we should take the unilateral action taken by Iceland. We are much too close to the European coast, we have relations with our neighbour, Great Britain, in relation to all these matters. Unilateral action on our part, to extend our fishing limits for this area of the Twenty-Six Counties alone, in advance of that conference, would I think be lunatic on our part. We should await the result of the conference.

Many questions were raised with regard to protection for fishermen. From having read the records, it would seem to me that the authorities are doing their best in the circumstances. Possibly the real solution is to fish outside the territorial waters and take some of the enormous quantities which lie there. That is probably the best way to compensate ourselves for such infractions of our territorial waters as may take place.

Deputy Haughey criticised An Bord Iascaigh Mhara for engaging in trading in fish. He said the board should confine its activities to administration, to courses of training, to grants and to advice. The board and its predecessor, the Irish Sea Fisheries Association, have been trading in fish for 25 years. By this means the repayment of moneys due for boats and gear is effected. The system has a number of advantages from the standpoint of the fishermen.

As I indicated, I hope to reach some satisfactory agreement with the private fishing interests but I should make it clear that there is virtually no country in Europe where a State organisation does not exist for the protection of the fisherman's rights in regard to his exploitation in time of glut and in regard to famine high prices in time of scarcity. Virtually every country seems to have some sort of organisation where fishermen are provided with loans or grants for boats. In many cases there exist subsidies for fish taken by certain types of boats. In other countries there are financial guarantees of various kinds. Even in countries with the most conservative type of administration, there is some kind of fishing authority to protect the interests of fishermen.

I hope we can restore a feeling of friendship and co-operation between the private fishing interests and the board. Naturally everything will be done to carry out that objective, but it obviously will take some time to study. I have asked the association most representative of the private fishing interests to present their views to me. They sent me a memorandum quite recently, which I am going to study, to see if we can secure a full understanding of the mutual interests involved, so that we can prevent the all too frequent publication of letters in the Press which would seem to suggest that the board is strangling the private fishing interests—letters which I think can be regarded, at least on certain occasions, as highly exaggerated.

I think I have dealt with all the major points, but perhaps I might say a word in reply to Deputies who asked that market consumer research be undertaken. I am very glad to say that we shall be joining a group of people convened under the auspices of O.E.E.C. We will have a representative taking part in a seminar to examine everything connected with market research related to the fishing industry. We have conducted market research already. Before I took office, I discovered that a report had been prepared on the fish consumption habits of some of the people of this country. Some of the facts recorded may be of interest to Deputies. A number of people were interviewed in eight of the larger towns, in some of which there are good facilities for purchasing fish, in some of which the facilities are not so good but where they exist, at any rate. It was found that, even including those in the higher income group, some 28 per cent. of the people in those towns ate no fish whatever, some 67 per cent. ate fish on Friday, 21 per cent. on Wednesday and a very very small number ate fish on other days of the week.

The report reveals many other problems that have to be faced if we are to expand consumption of fish in this country. There are a great many people who have not the time or who are not willing to go and look for fish in fishmongers' shops. They want to find it in another shop that is near to them. That is one difficulty. There is a large number of children under the age of 14 who do not like fish and the fish has either to be cooked for them in a manner which is agreeable to them, or else, in the case of families who are unwilling to have two types of meal, they will not have fish if the children sit at the table with them. Very few people complained of the quality of fish when it was available. There appears to be very little doubt that when fish does arrive in a certain place it is reasonably fresh. There were other places, particularly inland towns, where fish was only available for Friday consumption in any event, and for that reason it was marketed in a very limited way. I do not wish to go into any of the details in that regard but it shows that we can increase the consumption of fish at home.

I agree with Deputies that we want to increase the internal consumption of fish but it will not be of any great help to our economy unless we can also link it with an export programme. The greatest quantity of fish is eaten on Fridays and it does not replace meat and does not enable more cattle to be shipped. Even in Great Britain, after all their experience of the World War, over 77 per cent. of their fish is eaten on Fridays as evinced by a recent market research report. That is not saying that if we greatly increase the consumption of fish on other days of the week we might not leave more cattle for export. We might equally be discouraging the consumption of eggs, and it is perfectly obvious that at this stage in our economic history if we undertake any large measure in the improvement of our fishing industry, the increased consumption at home should be used as a base to reduce overhead costs, to enable gluts to be dealt with, and to increase the incentive and the interest of our fishermen upon which to build an export market.

Mr. T. Lynch

I wish to remind the Minister that I asked a question about the £45,000 and the £5,000 mentioned in the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance in regard to Dunmore East. The Minister was not in the House last night when I was speaking.

Mr. Childers

There was an error in the report. The Minister for Finance gave a total grant of £50,000 comprising a sum towards exploration, money for additional boats and a grant towards the construction of an ice plant in Dunmore. Owing to an error in the publication, which is not my responsibility, it appeared as if Dunmore was getting all but £5,000 of the whole of the extra grant. However, Dunmore is getting the ice plant.

Mr. Dillon

May I ask the Minister two questions? When he is examining the question of private fishery rights on salmon waters would he bear in mind the procedure adopted when we were acquiring the Foyle fisheries? That seems to be a useful precedent for any further action, inasmuch as it has apparently worked very successfully and remuneratively to the two authorities, our Government and the Government of the Six Counties, who joined in the purchase. The second question is, would be consider making available in the Library a copy of the very rough sketch map that is somewhere in the Department indicating the fishing grounds adjacent to this island, and where they principally lie. It would be of very great value to Deputies if the geographical facts of the fishing grounds adjacent to this island were more widely known.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 41.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neal T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Doherty, Seán.
Donegan, Batt.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Flynn, Stephen.
Gallagher, Colm.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Griffin, James.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Browne, Noel C.
Browne, Seán.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
MacCarthy, Seán.
MacEntee, Seán.
McQuillan, John.
Maher, Peadar.
Medlar, Martin.
Moher, John W.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Murphy, John.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
O'Toole, James.
Ryan, James.
Sheldon, William A. W.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

Belton, Jack.
Burke, James.
Byrne, Patrick.
Byrne, Tóm.
Carew, John.
Casey, Seán.
Coburn, George.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Desmond, Daniel.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Esmonde, Anthony C.
Fagan, Charles.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Hogan, Bridget.
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
Lindsay, Patrick.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
MacEoin, Seán.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Manley, Timothy.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Reynolds, Mary.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Ca sey.

Question declared carried.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 19 Jun 1957

Committee on Finance. - Vote 28—Fisheries (Resumed).

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jun 1957