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.