Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Jun 1960

Vol. 183 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 44—Fisheries.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £215,400 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, 1961, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

While the net total of £323,000 required for Fisheries is slightly less than that voted last year, it represents an increase of almost £24,000 over last year's actual expenditure of £299,031. The main reduction—£30,500—appears at subhead E. 6. Last year it was necessary to provide for the construction cost of the exploratory fishing vessel, while this year's provision is for the operation of the vessel. The principal increase is at subhead A and represents not only increases in remuneration awarded to the Civil Service generally but also provision for strengthening the staff of the Fisheries Division to cope with the expanding work—that expansion being also reflected in lesser increases at subheads B, C and D. Another important increase is for training schemes to which I shall refer later.

Fisheries policy finds a prominent place in the Government's Programme for Economic Expansion and the progress made last year in implementing that programme has already been reported in published statements for the period to 30th September, 1959, and the six months to 31st March, 1960. At this stage, therefore, it is unnecessary for me to attempt to deal with every aspect of fisheries policy. For the convenience of Deputies, however, I should like to give a brief sketch of the statistical background to sea fisheries before going on to refer to the more important subheads of the Estimate.

In 1959, there were 1,771 men and 510 motor vessels solely engaged in sea fishing; of these vessels 194 were classed as 25 tons gross and over. During the year ended 31st March, 1960, 16 new boats—including four of 56 feet and six of 50 feet—were issued by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to hire purchasers. Another 56 foot boat issued was the second of two for which grants had been provided in the Fisheries Vote, and three further boats of 19 feet were allocated under the special Gaeltacht scheme financed from the National Development Fund.

Landings of all varieties of sea fish —including shellfish but excluding salmon—were valued at £1,609,000 in 1959, an increase of 22 per cent. over 1958 and 58 per cent. over 1956. Herrings at £364,000 showed a further increase of almost £100,000 and accounted for about 90 per cent. of the pelagic varieties. Of demersal landings, whiting, plaice, cod, ray or skate and haddock were the most important varieties in order of value, but, when placed in order of quantity, whiting, cod and haddock retain the first, third and fifth positions, ray or skate becoming second and plaice fourth; whiting alone represented almost half of the demersal catch. Lobsters and crayfish made up 71 per cent. of the value of shellfish landed and Norway lobsters or Dublin Bay prawns, which were the third most valuable shellfish variety, again showed an appreciable increase in quantity.

In the first quarter of 1960, the total value of landings of sea fish reached £381,000, an increase of 29 per cent. over the corresponding period in 1959.

The upward trend in the value of fish exports in the previous two years was well maintained in 1959 when exports—other than of salmon and freshwater eels, which also showed an increase—reached the record total of £1,029,000; this represents an increase of 32 per cent. over 1958 and 140 per cent. over 1956. The corresponding export values for the opening months of 1960 are also running at a substantially higher level than in the same period last year.

Processing is now featuring in a telling way in the expansion of fish exports and in the development of our fishery economy generally. Not alone does it give a greatly enhanced value to the end product and open up foreign markets to which our fish could not be exported in the fresh state, but it provides worthwhile employment at home and greater stability for our fishermen. A general expansion of processing activity, mainly in relation to shellfish and herrings, contributed in no small degree to the increase in the value of fish exports for 1959.

I am hopeful that proposals at present under consideration by private interests for setting up other processing undertakings here will be developed in the current year. To keep apace of these developments, I would exhort our fishermen to do their utmost to increase landings so that the promoters of such enterprises may be assured of adequate and regular supplies of raw material.

Scientific investigation of our fisheries resources is essential if we are to use them to the best advantage and, for this purpose, membership of appropriate international organisations is of considerable value. Subhead E.1 includes increased provision for herring investigations and subheads E.2 and E.5 provide for contributions to international bodies.

Measures for conservation of fisheries are designed for the benefit of the fishermen in the long run: fishermen should, therefore, realise that it is in their own interest to see that the regulations are observed. I should like to take this opportunity of issuing a warning that I cannot condone breaches of the existing orders in relation to undersized fish and net meshes; these orders are made to guard against reckless exploitation and they must be strictly enforced.

Our first exploratory fishing vessel, "Cú Feasa", is now in commission and a sum of £14,500 is provided at subhead E.6 to meet operation costs. She will have a very full programme of work in specially organised cruises around the Irish coast during which the scientists and technologists aboard will collect essential data. Spectacular or rapid results cannot be expected as fishery investigations are long-term projects and information must be built up gradually.

As an example of the work to be undertaken, I might mention that an investigation of the herring stocks along the south-east coast will be carried out. Work will also extend to other species and experiments will be undertaken to determine the extent and nature of the migrations made by different species of fishes. A further type of investigation contemplated is a series of systematic trials of various fishing gears, including special instruments and techniques to enable their behaviour to be studied even though they may be operating at considerable depths. This kind of investigation should eventually prove of immense value to our fishermen, but, as I said, such studies are likely to be fairly long drawn out.

As part of the physical hydrography, the "Cú Feasa" will provide records of hazards to fishing which show up in the sounding devices and will have them plotted on the appropriate charts. Whenever possible, efforts will be made to identify the nature of such hazards. Now that fishing gear is so expensive, such information can be really valuable.

It is not the primary object of the vessel's work to seek out and immediately notify to the fishermen that stocks of fish exist here, there or elsewhere. If she does locate shoals of fish, the information will, of course, be made known. She may also be able to explore fishing beds or find out new fishing grounds, but that will be more or less incidental to her work which is a serious scientific effort to study the factors affecting the whole industry of catching fish.

The chief obstacle to development of our fishing industry continues to be lack of trained men. I am glad therefore to point to the increased provision at subhead E.7 for training purposes, and I sincerely hope it will be taken up. If the demand is there, I shall have no hesitation in increasing it still more. The fact is that there is great scope for trained skippers and competent fishermen in our expanding fishing industry. If we are to make real progress on the catching side, young men must come forward for training to fit them for a fishing career.

While the response to the scheme for training experienced fishermen as skippers has been disappointing, some progress has nevertheless been made. Twelve men who completed the courses have been successful at examinations for certificates of competency under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Fishermen should realise the benefits to be derived from these courses and I appeal to as many as possible of them to apply to my Department for training—without waiting for publication of advertisements.

The scheme introduced last year for training boys as fishermen has met with a satisfactory response; a notable feature is the interest and promise shown by boys from outside the usual fishing areas. Ten boys are at present being trained on boats operating from various ports. Nineteen further boys have recently been selected and will be assigned for training as quickly as possible. I must record my appreciation of the co-operation of the skippers and crews of the fishing boats taking part in this training scheme. As the scheme expands, places will be required on other boats and I am sure that, like their colleagues, the fishermen concerned will give their full co-operation in the working of the scheme.

In addition to the grant-in-aid of £160,000 at subhead G for An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, repayable advances to the Board up to a total of £240,000 have been authorised for the current year; these advances are in the main used to provide boats and gear for fishermen.

I have recently taken the opportunity of expressing to the members of the Board my concern regarding certain branches of the Board's activities. I have asked them, for instance, to let me have their considered opinion as to whether the Board should continue to engage in the marketing of fish or whether they should leave this entirely in the hands of private enterprise. The introduction of larger fishing boats —about 70 feet in length—has been suggested but, before craft of this size go into production, I would like to be assured that the Board have satisfied themselves that such vessels are likely to give satisfactory results.

I understand that a number of hire-purchasers of existing boats are not meeting their obligations. It is not quite clear whether this state of affairs is attributable to short-comings on the part of the hirers or to some other factor. I have, however, suggested that the Board might look into various aspects of this matter.

I have told the Board that I wish to have a complete re-assessment made of the sea fishing industry from a national point of view and that I expect them to make constructive suggestions in regard to catching potential, processing, marketing and exporting. I feel we should be building up the industry nationally with the full co-operation and help of private enterprise. Where private enterprise is able to do the job effectively, the State should provide help and encouragement.

Deputies will, I am sure, appreciate that there is no point in pressing the Board to establish further processing centres until such time as landings increase sufficiently to enable the existing factories at Killybegs, Galway and Schull to operate satisfactorily.

Subhead H covers various technical assistance projects, including advice from foreign experts and visits abroad. The reduced provision reflects completion of some of the major studies.

The Swedish consultant on fishery harbours completed his assignment and his report is under consideration. The Commissioners of Public Works are now arranging to proceed with the first stage of a scheme for the development of the harbour at Killybegs at an estimated cost of £200,000. Improvements at Greencastle harbour. County Donegal, at an estimated cost of £68,000 are also being put in hands by the Commissioners. I hope to be in a position shortly to make an announcement about the selection of other harbours for development.

The report of the Canadian fisheries economist engaged through F.A.O. to review the sea fishing industry here and advise on its future development is also under consideration. The number of copies at present available is very limited but the report will shortly be published by F.A.O.

On the vexed question of exclusive fishery limits. Deputies are already aware of the failure by one vote to obtain the required two-thirds majority for the U.S.-Canadian resolution at Geneva in April last. I need scarcely say that it is of the utmost importance for Irish fishery interests that agreement should be reached as quickly as possible. Our preference is to get agreement with other States rather than to take unilateral action, and we are anxiously watching all suggestions for a solution. The areas reserved to the exclusive use of Irish fishermen have, of course, been extended since the introduction of the straight baselines at the beginning of this year.

As I receive representations from time to time about the operations of boats fishing for herring off Dunmore East, it may be appropriate to refer here to the outcome of an inquiry held some months ago. Last year, it was put to me that it would be desirable to devise measures for the more effectual government, management, protection and improvement of the herring fisheries off the coasts of counties Waterford and Wexford, including the regulation of the fisheries and the preservation of good order amongst those engaged in the fishing. I ordered a public inquiry into the matter by officers of my Department. Though the inquiry was fairly well attended, no evidence was tendered to substantiate the request for the making of a bye-law; I, therefore, decided that no action is called for on my part.

The amount provided for inland fisheries under subheads F.1 to F.10 is £88,310 as compared with £82,800 in 1959-60, a net increase of £5,510. There has, however, been a decrease of £2,000 in the provision at subhead F.5 for compensation for the abolition of freshwater netting, so that in reality the additional amount being provided for what might be called productive purposes is of the order of £7,500. This increase should enable a steady rate of progress to be maintained in the development of inland fisheries. I shall deal briefly with the salient points of the subheads.

The slight increase in the provision at subhead F.1, which covers certain statutory payments to local authorities and to boards of conservators, arises from the adoption of a revised approach to the problems of the salmon fisheries in the Erne system.

As will be recalled from local press publicity early this year, an attempt is being made to deal with the complex problems of the rehabilitation of the Erne fisheries on a long-term basis and in full consultation with the various interests concerned. Thus the scheme already in existence for protecting the upper waters of the River Erne system has been improved in agreement with the Electricity Supply Board and the Ministry of Commerce, Belfast, who are sharing the cost with my Department.

Adequate protection in the upper waters of the Erne is, of course, a necessary adjunct to the restriction of netting in the estuary to build up the stocks of the river. The measures for rehabilitation have been devised on the best basis practicable so as to give the stocks the opportunity of recovering over a number of years while at the same time keeping the waters open for fishing to the greatest extent consistent with these measures. Although it has been found necessary to impose a total prohibition on fishing by commercial methods up to 1962, this prohibition will be relaxed in any year that brings a run of fish over and above what can be regarded as an adequate spawning stock. By this means it is hoped to secure the rehabilitation of the stocks in this important river system and at the same time to make it possible for the fishery to be preserved and with it the tradition of fishing among the fishermen whose livelihood has been in jeopardy.

The increase in subhead F.3 arises from an administrative arrangement transferring to the Fisheries Division the management of fisheries in the possession of the other two divisions of my Department, that is the Land Commission and the Forestry Division. Receipts from lettings of these State fisheries will be brought to credit under subhead I.3 which shows a corresponding increase.

The provision in subhead F.4 for scientific and technical investigations, etc. is being more than doubled—from £1,800 to £3,700. This is a logical development from the expansion of the engineering and scientific services of the Fisheries Division.

Having already mentioned the decrease at subhead F.5, I pass now to subhead F.6 which contains a grant-in-aid for the Inland Fisheries Trust. The provision is being increased to £30,000 as compared with £25,000 last year.

I do not think I need stress the value of the work being done by the Trust in the development of our inland waters, both in the interests of anglers here at home and of visiting anglers from abroad. For those who may desire detailed information, particulars of the Trust's work are to be found in its reports which are published annually. I might mention, however, that income from angling tourism has been estimated at £650,000 for the 1959 season, a not inconsiderable contribution to our national economy. For this notable achievement, great credit is due not only to the Trust but also to those local associations and development bodies who have co-operated so whole-heartedly with the Trust and Bord Fáilte in their efforts to attract visiting anglers to the country. It is a distinct pleasure for me to say that there is an abundance of goodwill between these voluntary local bodies and the officers of the Trust. With such goodwill, really effective work in clearance of predators, restocking etc., can be done and is being done.

The provision at subhead F.7 is in respect of the usual grant to the Salmon Research Trust of Ireland Incorporated which, in the short period of its existence—it was incorporated in 1955—has made quite a worthwhile contribution to the study of problems relating to the maintenance and improvement of salmon stocks in our rivers.

I may say also that the Salmon Research Trust has agreed to undertake research into the effects of the discharge of peat silt from bog workings on fish food, fish life and spawning potential in certain rivers. As a contribution towards the cost of these studies a sum of £1,000 is being provided in subhead H of this Vote; the balance is being contributed by Arthur Guinness, Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd., and by Bord na Móna.

Subhead F.8 makes funds available for the promotion of small-scale fish farming for rainbow trout. Deputies will, no doubt, be aware of the recent reports of the stocking of two demonstration units at the Glen of Aherlow and at Enniscorthy. Through these demonstration units, it is hoped to establish that fish farming is a practicable and profitable proposition for the small farmer who has a suitable supply of water—and particularly so in areas where farmers are prepared to come together and arrange production and marketing of the fish on a co-operative basis. I shall reserve further comment on the subject until the units recently set up have proved themselves.

Subhead F.9 contains provision for contributions to the Salmon Conservancy Fund. A sum of £4,000 is earmarked for grants to boards of conservators to supplement revenues from rates and licence duties. This sum is, of course, additional to the amount available from the levy on salmon exports and from excess duty on certain salmon rod licences surrendered to the Fund by the various boards. Last year, a total of £16,650 was distributed by way of grants to the various boards. This year, however, the indications are that, with protection costs increasing, the demands from the boards will probably be heavier.

A sum of £6,000 is being provided towards the construction of a salmon hatchery at Cong which is estimated to cost some £10,000. The hatchery is intended in the first instance to hasten rehabilitation of the salmon fisheries of the Corrib following the extensive drainage operations there. I am glad to say that planning of the hatchery is now at the blueprint stage, and it is hoped that the contract will be placed in the reasonably near future. Unless something unforeseen happens, the hatchery should be in operation this coming autumn.

The provision for improvement of salmon rivers is being increased to £6,000. This is, in my opinion, a most desirable scheme. It is to be expected that salmon stocks generally will be improved and in some cases rivers at present barren or nearly so will carry stocks of fish. Thus the work carried out under the scheme will benefit both sporting and commercial fishermen. I had hoped to be able to say at this stage that the first major work on the Inagh River at Ennistymon was well on its way to completion, but there has been a change in circumstances which has called for revision of the plans. Deputies will be glad to know, however, that the consent of all persons affected by the work has been obtained and local angling interests have indicated their willingness to assist in every way possible. The work will soon be put in hands and the engineering staff of the Fisheries Division will then be free to move on to other work for which much preliminary surveying has already been done.

I should like to refer also to the new subhead F.10, which has been opened to provide funds to meet commitments arising in connection with Ireland's membership of the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. This commission has been established under the auspices of FAO and its inaugural meeting was held recently in Dublin at the invitation of the Government. Representatives from some 15 countries attended the meeting, which was highly successful, and laid the foundations for collaboration and exchange of information between member countries in dealing with problems affecting inland fisheries. This country has been honoured by the election of the former Assistant Secretary of the Fisheries Division as first Chairman of the Commission.

I should refer to the long-awaited outcome of the work of consolidating the fisheries statutes. The Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, which had been before the Oireachtas on a number of occasions, became law last year and was brought into operation generally on 1st October, 1959. Apart from a few Acts relating to sea fisheries, this statute incorporates the whole body of fisheries legislation as enacted between 1842 and 1959. By presenting the existing law in comprehensive and orderly form we—and by "we", I mean not only the Legislature and the administration but also the public interested in fisheries—have before us the groundwork for considering what amendments or deletions or innovations are required to bring the fishery law into line with modern requirements.

A great many amendments have already been suggested by boards of fishery conservators and by other interested bodies. These are being studied in the Fisheries Division and consultation has taken place with the joint council of boards of conservators in the matter. This study will be pressed forward with all possible diligence, but considering the importance of the work in hand I do not think I need plead at length for patience, understanding, and co-operation, so that the end product may be worthy of our efforts, and may endure for a considerable time ahead to the advantage of all interests concerned.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that our fisheries—sea and inland—can be advanced to a highly productive enterprise. I know that, caught efficiently and properly processed and marketed, there is wealth in fish and my ambition is to ensure that more of that wealth is captured for this country.

I recommend the Estimate to the House.

Mr. T. Lynch

On behalf of my colleague, Deputy O.J. Flanagan, I move:

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

I am disappointed with some of the Minister's speech. I thought I would hear more about the marketing of fish. From my experience of fisheries, the important thing is to be able to sell the fish. If there is a market for fish, the fishermen will go out and catch it. If there is not a market for fish it does not matter whether or not the shoals are running. It is not worth while for fishermen to catch the fish and therefore they will not do so.

I trust the Minister will not dismiss any points I may make with the old excuse: "But that was done during the term of office of a former Government" or "That was done during the term of office of the Government the Deputy supported." I am not interested in who committed the sins but in the sins themselves. I urge the Minister not to follow in the footsteps or make the mistakes of many of his predecessors. I shall endeavour to criticise the policy over the years of the Fisheries Branch and to show that it has been without vision. I make no excuse for criticising that policy, as it applied to the fishing ports in my constituency.

The Irish fishing industry was the subject of a leader in the Sunday Independent of 12th June, 1960. Under the heading “Talking Cod about Fish !” we read:

The words spoken about "the Irish fishing industry" must be as numerous as the fish in the sea For many years we have been hearing about the wonderful possibilities if the industry were properly developed, yet very little seems to be actually accomplished.

Speakers at the Vocational Education Congress in Bundoran, County Donegal, have felt compelled to talk about the subject. Mr. S. Clayton, of Dún Laoghaire, declared that "employment for 50,000 men could be provided and exports could be increased tenfold if the maritime industry were put on a proper footing."

If words mean anything that is an indictment of all those people who have been entrusted with the development of our fisheries, sea and inland, in the past thirty years. While we are crying out for British, Germans, Americans, French, Dutch and others to come here to set up industries, we appear to be neglecting one that is off our own coasts.

Much public money has been spent on providing boats for fishermen. Indeed, it would be in the public interest to have stated the amount spent in the past ten years and the calculated return obtained. The people in general will not complain, but they should be assured that their hard-earned money is being spent wisely, that it is not, in effect, being thrown into the sea.

Whether or not the fishing industry can employ an extra 50,000 men I cannot say but the statement brings to mind the promise of the Taoiseach to find jobs for a very large number of men I would draw his attention to that point. If the fishing industry is properly organised, can this state of affairs be brought about and, if so. who will achieve it? Will the Fisheries Branch organise the industry? I submit they will not and cannot do so if they continue to carry out the type of policy which they seem to have been carrying out for years, namely, that all boats, all moneys, all improvements and savings must go to the benefit of the west and the north and that the south-east—the Pale, as I prefer to call it—will get nothing and no recognition whatever.

I do not come here, as many Deputies have come, to shout for a fish factory and an ice plant for my constituency. I have heard Deputies even on this side of the House very vociferous on that matter. Government Deputies and Opposition Deputies have actually forced the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister in charge of Fisheries at the time to erect fish factories at places where they were not required. As country people say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. All that ever happened the fish factories was that a party came down from Dublin to open them. They brought fish from Dublin, had it processed and said what a fine thing it was that the factory was opened. People have been making hay around some of those fish factories since. If I or any Deputy should ask the Minister to do anything like that I want him to say: "I will not put up installations where no fish will be caught or where there is no prospect of fish ever being caught." I do not want the reply that this Government or some other Government made this mistake or that mistake.

Since I became a Deputy I have drawn the attention of the Fisheries Branch year after year to Dunmore East. The first ray of hope I received was in the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance on the 8th May, 1957, his first Budget speech in his present term of office. As reported at column 944 of Volume 161, No. 8, of the Official Report, he said:

I propose to make available for the benefit of the sea and inland fisheries an additional sum of approximately £50,000. Of this sum, £45,000 will be used to erect an ice plant at Dunmore East and to provide additional fishing boats. The balance of £5,000 is being made available to the Inland Fisheries Trust in the form of a grant to meet the cost of improvements to inland fisheries and additional expenditure on the Trust's fish farm.

I did not believe my ears but, being a Budget speech, what could I say? Furthermore, I heard it read out that night on the Radio and I read it in the papers the next day. We had been so badly treated that I could not but say to myself: "This is really too good to be true."

On 19th June, 1957, Deputy Childers, the Minister's predecessor, made his concluding speech on this Estimate. As reported at column 1069 of the Official Report, I asked him about a question which I raised during the debate as it seemed that in his concluding speech he was passing over the question. The relevant extract is as follows:

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.

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.

I might say that when the ice plant was erected and opened it was inadequate. If there is any need to prove how inadequate it was I have it here, dated December 4, 1959:

Port Closed—And Opened.

To prevent a herring glut at Dunmore East, County Waterford, fishermen and fish buyers decided on Tuesday afternoon to close the port for Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. The decision was made after an emergency meeting between members of the fish trade.

They had landed 3,000 cran of herring on the pier and they had neither boxes, ice nor storage. The Minister cannot blame me for being a little bit disappointed that the only reference he made to Dunmore was at the end of his brief and that was en passant. There was nothing about the importance of Dunmore as the most important fishery but simply:

As I receive representations from time to time about the operations of boats fishing for herring off Dunmore East——

It would appear as if the Minister was being told about some place with which we were in external relations.

I went to see something of what was being done at Dunmore East and what was being caught there. As it happened, I was there on the evening that the Minister's officials were there and I happened to be present at the inquiry, and discovered that they had landed on the pier that day 4,000 cran. Then I read in the papers the next day of the wonder it was that at a port in the north-west they had landed 4,000 cran in the season.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to this aspect. One would think that, if it were a matter of good policy in the Fisheries Section this would be a port on which money would be spent, that this pier at Dunmore East would be one that lorries could travel down, that there would be quick-freezing and storing facilities and that there would be a proper ice plant there. I want to inform the Minister —I am glad he is present because I know he will take an interest in this— that but for the decency of Clover Meats Limited and Denny's of Waterford in regard to the amount of ice they give the fishermen, the fishermen would not be able to carry on the fishery at Dunmore.

Some Deputies on the far side give me the horse laugh: they say: "He is going to talk about Dunmore again." These Deputies never talk of their own constituencies. I asked a Question as to what were the landings of fish at the various fishing ports recently and I was told that 101,000 cwts. were landed at Killybegs. That is a fine landing but there were nearly 300,000 cwts. landed at Dunmore East. Yet, Dunmore East is hardly mentioned in the brief and not mentioned at all in the Vote for the Board of Works. I want to draw the Minister's attention to that. At column 1379 of Volume 181, I had to come in again and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Finance where the Vote of £100,000 for repairs and extensions to fishery harbours was to be spent and he said:

I should like to accept the accusation that I selected a couple of harbours in Donegal but I had nothing to do with the selection at all.

The quotation continues:

Mr. T. Lynch: It was a great coincidence.

Mr. J. Brennan: It was. The Fisheries Section make the selection. The selection was based on the report of the Swedish expert which was supplied to every Deputy. If you look that up you will find a summary——

Mr. T. Lynch: Experts always confuse me.

Mr. J. Brennan: The Deputy must agree that Killybegs was the obvious place for development as a major fishery harbour?

Mr. T. Lynch: It is very unfortunate that such a lot of fish are being caught in Dunmore.

Mr. J. Brennan: Deputy Lynch might not agree but I think the Swedish consultant was convinced beyond doubt of the merits of developing Killybegs as a major fishery port.

I want to draw attention to the fact that although Deputy Brennan said that the report of the Swedish expert had been supplied to every Deputy I did not get that report nor has the report been made available to any Deputy. The Minister knows that and Deputy Brennan obviously made a mistake there. The best in the world can make a mistake and the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor made a mistake in building a fishery plant in the wrong place. Therefore, we shall not hold it against Deputy Brennan too much but I should like to see that report whenever it can be made available to us.

I think that is a deplorable state of affairs—that the whole Vote for the Board of Works this year must go to two ports that have had a considerable amount of money spent on them according to the figures which I sought and got from the Minister and from his predecessor. As I said earlier I was almost knocked into a cocked hat when I was told by the Minister for Finance that £45,000 was to be spent on Dunmore. My hide may not be as good as that of my friends from western constituencies in receiving news like that; they would be startled only if they were getting about £8,000,000 but we in the south-east always seem to have to put up with small amounts.

There are so many sins here that it is difficult to sort them out, but this is interesting and I should like to put it to the Minister. He mentioned in his brief the boats allocated by An Bord lascaigh Mhara and he answered a question from me last week and said that 103 boats had been given out since, I think, 1946. We got one boat in Dunmore. I think we should put it into dry dock and retain it as they retain the Cutty Sark in London for exhibition purposes, as something for visitors to go and see.

The ice factory at Dunmore is inadequate. The Minister's officers should go immediately to Dunmore and see to it that an extension is put on to that ice plant and sufficient storage space made available. Improvements could be made on the pier without widening it. It is a very wide pier and I was informed that it cost £150,000 to his Britannic Majesty a hundred years ago. I suppose it would cost millions of pounds to build it now and we will not spend any money on keeping it in repair.

This document entitled Sea Fisheries Policy was drawn up by the Minister's predecessor and circulated to all Deputies on 21st July, 1959. It states:

The Minister for Lands wishes to clarify various points in regard to the markets for sea fish (excluding salmon) and the scope for increased landings.

One of the points is:

Attractive facilities for the purchase of fishing boats—grants, low interest rates and low deposit.

I would appeal to the Minister to advertise the fact that ports like Dunmore are not excluded, that if people there apply for boats they will get them. It is such a long time since a boat came the way of Dunmore that the people there would not apply for one. They think they would be only wasting their time looking for a boat. The third point is the development of fishery harbours. I should like harbours to be developed where fish are being caught. The best way now to get a fish factory or any other industry is to propose putting it up where nobody wants it, and then it closes down again. I believe that is happening under the Department of Industry and Commerce. The other day industrialists advertised in a town for people and they would not take the jobs.

There are other points in this circular such as: "Encouragement of better presentation and preservation of fish.""Cheaper ice at various ports." Paragraph 11 says:

We are the only maritime nation in Northern Europe without well supplied canneries, quick-freeze plants and fishmeal factories.

We have fishmeal factories and quick-freeze plants but we have no fish there.

Paragraph 12 states:

We have substantial quick-freezing and cold storage capacity at Dublin, Cork, Galway, Killybegs and Schull —but there is no other country in northern Europe where so little fish has been quick-frozen in the past twelve months.

There was no surplus of fish going into many of these ports. There was no need to hold it over.

Paragraph 13 says:

Landings should be sufficient to enable fish to be sold not only for current consumption but also at certain periods for quick-freezing and cold-storage so that regular supplies can be available when fresh fish is scarce.

Paragraph 14 is as follows:

A fishmeal plant with a capacity of several thousand tons a year is idle. In other small countries fishmeal plants have little difficulty in securing raw material at economic prices; in some cases the fishermen may receive somewhat higher prices under self-supporting schemes operated by the fishermen themselves.

Why are these plants idle? The reason is, as I have been hammering home here for years, that they were put up where no fish are being caught. They were put up for a whole lot of reasons such as the preservation of the Irish language: "We must give it to the Gaeltacht fishermen. There are four or five Deputies here in whose constituencies these fish factories must be established. It would help them to get votes." The Minister coming new into this business should do away with all that.

In reply to a Parliamentary Question on Thursday, 16th April, 1959, I was told that the amounts expended on grants by the Department of Finance during the period 1st April, 1945 to 31st March, 1959, in each of the following ports were: Killybegs, £28,109; Kilmore, £1,581; Helvick, £3,669; Dingle, £7,607; Dunmore East, £21,191. The Department of Industry and Commerce spent £77,000 on Arklow, £8,000 on Galway and £32,416 on Killybegs. Enormous sums of money are being spent constantly on harbours where no fish are being caught. I do not mind repeating that because I want to emphasise that it is a waste of public money and of effort and no good will come of it.

I notice also that £22,000 was spent on Greencastle. They caught 2,000 boxes of fish there last year which means that £10 is being voted to it for every box of fish. It is about time we called a halt to this nonsense if the fishing industry is ever to be developed. We bought three trawlers some years ago costing £120,000 and it cost £60,000 or £70,000 to keep them afloat. They are tied up somewhere around Ringsend. The Minister is trying to sell them and if he succeeds we should decorate him as being "some" salesman. I should like to know who sold them to us. He certainly was a salesman. It was £200,000 thrown into the sea. There are fine fishing piers and fine fishermen and they would not get 2d. from the Department.

Mr. Moran

Negotiations are going on in connection with the sale of these boats and I suggest, therefore, the Deputy should restrain himself.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy is restraining himself. All I am saying is that if the Minister sells them he should be decorated as a salesman. I am not doing the Minister any harm by telling him the price they cost. It is hard for the Deputy to restrain himself when he finds people who were born and reared to sea-fishing sailing in fleets of what are called foreign countries. They could not get a boat. I had to exert desperate pressure in this House to get a boat called the Ardmore for Helvick. The port of Helvick is near the great Ring College and the Waterford Gaeltacht. Evidently the language was not strong enough down there. Neither apparently was the pressure and so, today, there is that splendid pier at Helvick with a few measly boats moored at it.

This document says: "There is an increasing market for herring—fresh, frozen, cured and tinned—and in a great many countries; this is only partly influenced by the decline in the herring catch in some sea areas. There are markets for canned sprat, mackerel and shellfish of certain types. There is an American market for prawns, some varieties of cured fish and quick-frozen haddock. The market for shellfish of nearly all types, fresh, quick-frozen, preserved and tinned, is growing rapidly." We have the market according to that document. We have the market as far as I can see. Enormous catches can be absorbed.

I urge the Minister to ensure sufficient storage. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should step in when there is a glut; they should buy; they should quick-freeze, and they should store. The Minister does not like the idea of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara going into the actual marketing of fish. Perhaps, he is right, but I think it would be a good thing if An Bord Iascaigh Mhara could be there in the background to step in to save the market should the necessity arise.

The Minister says he wants to encourage private enterprise in relation to canning and processing. There are some very fine firms in the fish business, but there are also smaller men who, if they were given the chance, would be prepared to build up their business. The Minister is having inquiries made about those who have not paid for their boats or have fallen behind. I should not like to be hard on hire purchasers. Neither, I am sure, would the Minister or anybody else in this House. When the Minister gives out a boat he is giving to men something by means of which they can earn an enormous amount of money, if they want to earn it. If they merely want to put down hatching hens in the boats, naturally they will not catch any fish. I agree the Minister will have to be firm, but he should give people a chance. If they are not making an earnest effort the boats should be taken back from them.

Some people may think I am interested in the fishermen in my own constituency only. That is not so. I have the greatest admiration for our fishermen. I see them from North and West, but principally from Killybegs, down in Dunmore following the shoals. These are not the kind of fishermen we had some years back, who went out and had a good catch; it was "lán a' mhála," and everybody went on the spree for two or three weeks. But the fishermen today take their business seriously. They keep their boats well. They are not so much concerned with celebrating as with getting their boats ready to go out again at the first opportunity. I commend them. I meet many of them. If the Minister supplies boats for people such as those we shall have a great fishing industry, the sort of industry we are all anxious to see established.

I am sure the Minister will be tolerant of my taking him to task here. He mentioned Galway and Killybegs, but he never mentioned the places where all the fish are caught. I will repeat now what I said on his Estimate for Forestry and on his Estimate for Lands: I am convinced he wants to make a great success of his term as Minister. I want him now to take what I am about to say in good part. It is offered as advice, not as criticism. I urge him to go over the whole ground, find out the mistakes that were made in the past, and take steps to ensure those mistakes will not occur again in the future. During the Recess, I am sure he will visit many of the fishing centres. I hope he will visit my constituency. If he will allow me the honour, I shall be only too glad to meet him, with my colleagues, to welcome him and give him any help we can.

I have covered a great deal of ground now and I am sure I have landed a new fish. So far as my constituency is concerned, and especially so far as Dunmore East is concerned, the policy of the Fisheries Branch has not been successful. The only way to ensure a nourishing fishing industry is by developing the harbours generally and not just those in pet constituencies or because the people are badly off. The harbours to develop are the harbours in the areas where the fish run, where the fish are caught, and where the fish are sold.

There are a few other items with regard to repairs and so forth I shall leave for another day. If and when the Minister visits my constituency we shall show him what we need.

The Inland Fisheries Trust is doing a good job and the Minister has shown great interest in its work, not only as Minister but as a fisherman himself, which is all to the good. It is very gratifying to receive newspapers and magazines from other countries, sometimes from the other side of the world, in which our fisheries are mentioned, and that is to the credit of the Trust. The erection of hatcheries, the production of fish fry and the stocking of fresh-water lakes will pay large dividends and be a great asset to the ordinary people living around the lakes which are stocked, not only from the point of view of the recreation and sport which they themselves will get in fishing the lakes but from the point of view of the tourist trade and the money spent in those areas by visiting anglers. I can assure the Minister that so far as my interest in fisheries is concerned, I hope his term of office as Minister in charge of fisheries will be a success, and I wish him the best of luck in it.

Mr. Faulkner

Considerable improvements have been made in the fishing industry over the past few years and it was very gratifying to note from the Minister's speech to-day that this year there was a large increase in fish exports and perhaps what is more important is that this is a trend which has been continuing over a number of years and is likely to continue in the future. Admittedly, the export of fish is the most important aspect of our fishing industry but I should like to see some more done towards extending the home market for fish. Even in some coastal districts, it is still difficult to get a regular supply of fish and many of our young people grow up rarely tasting fish except from tins. As long as this state of affairs continues, it will be well-nigh impossible to extend the home market because these young people will not have had an opportunity of acquiring a taste for fish. Just as in the case of any other commodity which we have for export, a good home market is a sound basis on which an export market can be built because it can cushion to some extent the adverse effect of fluctuations in the export market.

I wonder could we have a campaign launched in our schools, much on the same lines as the "Buy Irish" campaign, stressing the food value of fish. Of course such a campaign would need to be backed up by having a regular supply of fish available in our towns and villages. I would also suggest to the Minister that he get in touch with the Department of Education to have lessons on fish incorporated in school books. Off-hand, I cannot remember any school reader in Irish or English in which there are lessons in which fish are even mentioned, except, perhaps, the one about Finn Mac Cumhail and the salmon of knowledge. For a maritime country, in view of the value of our fishing industry and the beneficial effect of its development on our economy and unemployment problems, I think it is shortsighted policy that more stress is not placed in our school books on the subject of fish.

We have still much to learn in regard to the cooking of fish. There are many ways in which fish can be cooked but our methods rarely vary and I was glad to note recently that the Irish Countrywomen's Association ran a course in the cooking of fish at An Grianán, in my constituency. I feel that if there were more of these courses and if the people attending them passed on the knowledge they acquire to their neighbours, they would have a very beneficial effect and would help to increase the consumption of fish here at home. Very good work is being done at the moment in marketing frozen fish but I feel we have not-developed it enough. We have not developed it to the extent possible and in our smaller towns and villages, frozen fish is not readily available.

The Minister is to be complimented on increasing the amount of money provided to train boys to become fishermen. In every sphere, new techniques are being devised and this is true of fishing, as of any other industry. The methods which were good enough a few years ago are not-good enough today, and if we are to compete in the export market we shall have to make use of the latest methods. These young men obtain very valuable knowledge and experience during their training and I am aware of a case in my own constituency where two young men, having trained for a period on a foreign vessel, returned to their own boat and increased their catches so much that they were the talk of a whole district. As the Minister said last year, we need more and more boats if we are to develop our fishing potential to the full, and if we train more skippers and fishermen, then the new boats we provide will be automatically acquired by them.

I spoke to the Minister on a number of occasions during the year regarding difficulties facing the fishermen of Drogheda on the Boyne and I am glad to note that the Corporation is attending to some of their grievances. As I explained to the Minister, the fishermen's nets and gear were being badly damaged by objects floating in the river. The Minister stated today that fishing gear is very expensive and so it is very easy to understand the annoyance of a fisherman whose livelihood is placed in jeopardy because of the expense involved in having to replace and repair damaged gear.

Another matter which I mentioned to him, and which he has been attending to, is the pollution of the Boyne which is poisoning some of its fish stock. This also had a very bad effect on the livelihood of the fishermen working on that river and I should like the Minister to press this matter and continue to have it examined until such time as it is finally resolved to the satisfaction of all.

Some time ago, I was glad to learn from the Minister that the mussel beds along the coast of my constituency, which had deteriorated for many years because of lack of care, are improving very much, thanks to the fact that they have been properly attended to for some time. The mussel fishing industry was a very large one on that coast some years ago but because proper attention was not paid to the mussel beds, the mussels deteriorated in quality and were not of much value. Now they have improved considerably and I hope we shall have a worthwhile mussel industry there again.

One of my main reasons for speaking on this Estimate was that I wanted to refer to the report of the Swedish expert regarding fishing harbours. That report is at present before the Government and evidently a decision has been made with regard to certain ports on the west coast but I should be glad if the Minister would give his decision soon concerning the ports on the east coast. Since the time the suggestion was first made that one of these major fishing ports would be located north of Dublin, I have constantly stressed the suitability of Clogher Head. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Childers, visited Clogher Head and was very impressed by the harbour, and I feel that because of its suitability and its position, it would be ideal as a major fishing port. There is a very large fishing fleet based there, a large local fleet, and during the fishing season, it caters also for a considerable number of other boats as well. I should be very glad, therefore, if the Minister would favourably consider the Clogher Head fishing port.

On the question of poaching by foreign trawlers, the new base lines have been helpful in that regard but some decision should be come to in the matter of fishery limits. We have had considerable trouble in my constituency as a result of poaching by foreign trawlers. The big difficulty was that by the time the protection boat left its base, the trawler had disappeared. They were able to pick up the radio messages and knew exactly when the protection boat was leaving. In cases where foreign trawlers were caught, the fines were so low as to be no deterrent at all. In fact, in some instances where foreign skippers were taken into port and fined, it was known they made much more than the amount of the fine by fishing on the way out. For that reason I am just as anxious as the Minister to have this matter of the fishery limits defined as soon as possible.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Each year the Fisheries Estimate brings the same type of criticism or praise. I think that if the Government consider there is sufficient scope for a Fisheries Section, they should provide sufficient in the Estimate for it. I do not wish to be unduly critical of the Estimate or indeed of any of the Fishery Estimates introduced since the establishment of the State. However, if we wish the fishing industry to become a major national industry, it is not sufficient for us to pay lip service to it. The sooner Governments give up tinkering with the fishing industry and provide sufficient funds for its development the better. It is little use putting a programme of expansion of the fishing industry before the House and concluding with the phrase: "We would be inclined to do more if funds were available." If the position is that moneys can be expended generously on other State Departments while fishery expenditure has to be curtailed, then let us cut out the Fisheries Section altogether. I am sure every Deputy will admit that the one way of expanding the fishing industry is to spend plenty of money on it. No other industry warrants greater expenditure on its development.

The Minister must be aware that, however bright the picture he attempted to paint, there has been emigration from many of the centres of the fishing industry. Yet we find the Minister has asked the Board to examine sympathetically the circumstances in which a number of people who have boats are failing to pay their hire purchase instalments. Is the Minister going to measure the prosperity of the industry in that regard? When you have fishermen working on boats for which they are unable to pay, surely that cannot be taken as a picture of prosperity so far as they are concerned?

Some time ago there was a report published in the daily papers of a meeting in Dublin of the National Retail Fish Merchants' Association. They were commenting on a conference held in Germany sponsored by O.E.E.C. at which 11 countries were represented, amongst them France, Sweden, Italy and Britain. The discussions lasted a week and the heading given by all the newspapers to the result of that conference was: "Ireland can supply the world's freshest fish." How can Ireland do that if our fishermen are in the position that they cannot pay for their boats and if you have emigration — I shall not say wholesale emigration— from all our coastal districts?

While the Minister may present us with figures seeking to show that there are greater numbers employed in the fishing industry to-day than in the past, the people living in the fishing districts and familiar with the industry know very well that there are fewer employed to-day than in the past. That is not indicative of a thriving industry. Is it not correct to say that a number of our fishermen are now employed in Fleetwood and other fishing centres around the British coast? Not long ago when in Blackpool, I went on to pay a visit to Fleetwood. I was surprised to see there, employed by a well-known fish processing concern, a number of people associated with the fishing industry here who came over from Cork, Kerry and Donegal.

I could not help asking why they were working in Fleetwood. They said that easy money was obtained there. There was more constant employment and they felt that the fish processing activities in Fleetwood would guarantee them a wage which would enable them to send home a substantial sum of money. They could not obtain such a wage in their own country. Those people are in Fleetwood not because they love being there but because they like to be associated with the fishing industry. They are familiar with the activities of the fishing industry and in their own spheres in regard to fish processing, they claim to be experts. Is it not extraordinary that, while we have scope for expansion and development in our own fishing industry those intimately connected with the fishing industry here are obliged to seek a livelihood abroad?

I do not blame the Minister for that. If any of us offer criticism, such criticism ought to be based on constructive advice to the Minister. There is little use in offering criticism of a very serious character unless we are prepared to back it up with a constructive proposal. Our fishermen are brave and good. They are courageous. They are the sons and grandsons of fishermen but they feel that for their hard work, labour and toil, they are not getting a financial reward sufficient to warrant remaining in the industry.

There is little encouragement for the children to take the places of their fathers or grandfathers in the fishing industry. I have often wondered why our Fisheries Branch did not devote their energies to long term development and not alone encourage those in the fishing industry to remain in it but also encourage those who are not in it to participate in it. Our fishing industry ought to be capable of employing a greater number of people.

I do not deny that there has been a good deal of development carried out on the Donegal coast but that situation is not due to the political influence of any Party or any Deputy. It is due to the fact that the fishermen in that district did it themselves. I am sure the Minister will agree with that. If county Donegal and the area round Killybegs appear, from the Fisheries Estimates in the past, to be obtaining a greater measure of financial assistance from either Bord Iascaigh Mhara or the Department, they are not getting it because of any special reason. They are getting it because they are good fishermen and because they are industrious.

There is another reason. The fish happen to be there. Naturally, if you have the fish in plentiful supply and if the fishermen are equipped, you will have activity in such an area. My experience of the Killybegs fishermen and of the fishermen on the Donegal coast in general is that anything they get in that regard they deserve and they are entitled to it. From their activities and from the interest they have in their work, they are entitled to even more.

A regrettable loss of life has taken place in recent years among those engaged in the fishing industry. The fishermen have to put up with continuous suffering. Certain interests in the fishing industry have to suffer through bad luck and stormy weather in districts like Glengad. There is a lack of a suitable breakwater, a lack of piers, a lack of safe anchorage and a lack of shelters. Those are very necessary facilities. There is little use in offering sympathy to those who because of gales and bad weather are unable to provide themselves with safe anchorage and whose boats cannot be tied up in very bad weather. Due to the severity of the gales, their boats are smashed. There is considerable inconvenience and a complete loss of means of livelihood.

To sympathise with them may console them temporarily, but we must do something more than that. Let us provide those people with safe anchorage and safe harbours. The only way in which that can be done is to have more co-operation between the Office of Public Works, the Fisheries Branch, the county councils, Bord lascaigh Mhara and everybody else connected with the matter.

That is where I want to offer a word of criticism, not in a spirit of administering any hurtful rebuke to any sections of the Minister's Department. There appears to be a great deal of duplication of work. There also appears to be an endless and everlasting growth of files, with the passage of files from one Department to another in connection with piers, harbours and breakwaters. If the Fisheries Branch are prepared to recommend that a certain proposal be carried out, we find that the consent of the county council, the approval of the county engineer, etc., are necessary. It is necessary for the engineering staff of the Office of Public Works to report. It takes a considerable time before all this work can be carried out.

Departmental committees are very slow to work. I have often wondered if there was some means by which the Fisheries Branch could take over the full and complete responsibility for harbours and piers. I do not propose to advocate legislation; I am only suggesting that some means should be provided by which the construction of harbours, the extension of piers and the provision of suitable breakwaters and shelters could be simplified and speeded up. The present system is not satisfactory. It is not a workable system and it will not give speedy results.

There may be engineering difficulties but no matter what the difficulties may be, the Minister will agree that, when it takes years and years to consider whether certain proposals should be carried out or not, it is not good enough. I shall give an instance to the Minister. I do not know if there have been any recent developments with regard to Glengad. Considerable complaints and representations have been made about it. I shall give the instance of Ballycotton in county Cork. I can clearly remember, because of the special interest I had in Ballycotton at the time, that when I was in the Department, one of the last files I examined was that regarding the extension of the pier at Ballycotton. At that time, an iceplant had been provided for Ballycotton and I understood that the Board had a programme to follow up over a number of years by which substantial funds would be spent on fishery development in general in the Ballycotton area.

I can clearly recollect that the Fisheries Branch addressed a communication to Cork County Council some time in February, 1957, and as far as I can gather, there has been little progress since then. We may be told that the engineering staff of Cork County Council are awaiting the result of borings, or awaiting some technical or engineering advice, but that is of little use to the fishermen of Ballycotton and that is exactly what I should like to try to cut out, if it is possible. It may be easy for a Deputy who is in opposition to say that, but it might be very difficult for a Minister to try to do it. Surely, however, it is not beyond the Minister's powers to bring all parties together when he sees such a delay as this.

We have the experience of Ballycotton where you had a genuine case backed up by Cork County Council, the clergy, the fishermen working in Ballycotton, public representatives, Deputies and others; yet we find that at the end of a number of years, we seem to be no further than when we started. Ballycotton may be no worse than any other areas where extensions were to be carried out to piers and breakwaters. I feel that no matter what the Minister may say about his Department, he cannot be too pleased with the progress made in that regard.

I wonder if one yard of pier has been erected at any place since 1957 or if there has been any extension whatever to piers or breakwaters. Could the Minister give us an idea what money has been expended on the provision of safe anchorages for fishermen in the past three years? There does not seem to be anything provided in that regard in this Estimate, beyond surveys, nor did there seem to be anything in last year's Estimate. I feel that the Office of Public Works are unsatisfactory in that regard and the sooner some other system is formulated to provide beneficial results for the fishermen and for expending money on improvements for safe anchorage at ports all around the coast, the better.

I know that the Government at one stage were considering a plan for the provision of three or four major fishery harbours. The sums of money which were to be provided for each of those in accordance with the estimates were colossal. Even if the harbours were constructed, it is doubtful if the fishermen would not continue to bring their catches to the ports which they have always been using. I address this query to the Minister: instead of spending a colossal sum of money running into some millions of pounds, in providing three or four major fishery centres, would it not be much better, for the fishermen and the industry in general, to spend something on improving existing harbours, piers, and breakwaters and providing safe anchorages around the coast? He should leave the question of providing major harbours in the background and decide what money he can spend, on a priority list, from surveys already carried out.

There is one place in county Mayo —I think it is Murrisk—which seemingly had a genuine case. I felt that some improvements and extensions should have been carried out there. I do not know if anything has been done in the meantime. Again there was the position of Blacksod in county Mayo where it seemed to me the fishermen appeared to be as industrious, honourable and hard working as you would find even in the heart of Killybegs. In those two cases, I felt, in 1955, 1956 and early 1957, that there was a good deal of merit. I am sure the Minister feels with me that there is merit in those proposals but seemingly if anything has to be done, it must be done in the Government Cabinet room where very substantial sums must be provided.

With the permission of the Chair, may I repeat: there is little use in tinkering with the situation; we must be courageous and must be prepared to face up to it and spend money on it? I hope the Minister will do something about that. If he has in his Department any surveys carried out in regard to reasonable estimates for the putting of existing piers and breakwaters into a reasonable state of repair, which would be in accordance with the dimensions required by the local fishermen, I am sure their cost would be much less than the cost of providing three or four major ports, the success or failure of which we cannot anticipate.

If we are to increase our catching power, we must have the men. Training facilities have been made available by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and I am very sorry to say that from my reading of the situation, these training facilities have not been availed of as fully as we should like. I wonder why? Does it follow from the fact that there are so few men to train as fishermen that there is prosperity in the industry? There seems to be a great deal of apathy in regard to the sons of fishermen being anxious to follow in their fathers' footsteps and to train in the up-to-date and modern technique of fishing. I am rather disappointed that the response around our coast to the provision of these facilities has not been much better.

I have often wondered if the Minister has reviewed that position and if he has asked himself what he can do to make it more attractive for the young men of today so that they may be trained in the best fishing techniques and so follow the good example set by their fishing forefathers. I wonder is there any use in the Minister considering making it more attractive for fishermen's sons to come forward and be trained? It is all very fine to say there is no need for fishermen's sons to be trained in the art of fishing, but we have reached the stage in this country, and in countries all over the world, where modern ideas and more up-to-date methods in every sphere of activity are the order of the day. There is the comparison as between an up-to-date modern woollen mill and the old spinning wheel, and in agriculture, farmers take the advice of instructors, with the result that they get increased yields and added fertility in the soil.

So it is with the fishing industry. Unless the young people are prepared to learn modern, speedy and up-to-date methods of fishing, we shall fall behind the other fishing countries of the world. I should like to add my voice from this side of the House to the voice of the Minister in asking our young fishermen to avail of the training facilities, to learn more, and to take advantage of the schemes provided for them by the State. It is in their own interests and in the interests of the fishing industry that they should acquire a fuller knowledge of modern methods of fishing.

I am rather disappointed that the response to those schemes has not been as good as it might have been, and I hope some form of campaign will be embarked upon to focus special attention on the need for training our young fishermen. How do they expect to get modern fishing boats unless they know how to use them? I am sure the Minister will agree that is the position. If modern fishing boats are to be put on the water for them, the crews should be experienced, and they should have an adequate knowledge of the working of the boats which are provided at very great expense. The provision of a fishing boat is not like the provision of any cheap article. It is expensive and there are risks involved, and the person who takes over the control of one of those boats takes over a very great responsibility.

That is why I feel that in view of modern apparatus, modern engines and the up-to-date construction of these boats, we cannot expect our fishermen to step out of the old type of boat into those modern highly-equipped boats and work them straight away. That is why training and a knowledge of modern fishing methods are necessary. There is no use in a young fisherman saying: "My father was a good fisherman and I am the same," because in that event a young farmer might as well say: "My father was a good farmer and I am as good." There should be a greater appreciation of the training facilities which are available and I should like to ask the Minister to give some consideration to the question of making them more attractive. The response has not been very satisfactory and I should like to hear what he has to say in that regard.

It is true that the total catch in what we can describe as Irish fishing waters is in the order of 150,000 tons of fish per year, but we must bear in mind that only about ten per cent. of that figure is taken by our fishing fleet. I think the Minister will agree with me that ten per cent. of 150,000 tons is a very small percentage.

I do not see any reference to the Gaeltacht boat scheme in the Minister's statement. I should like to hear whether that scheme is in existence now, whether in the past year any boat has been provided for the Fior-Ghaeltacht under this scheme, whether there are any applications for boats and what exactly is the present position with regard to that scheme.

I should also like to hear from the Minister what is the position in regard to the boat-building industry in this country in general. Our boat-building industry could be a very important branch of our fishing industry. There does not appear to be any reference in the Minister's statement to what boat-building activities are taking place at Ballymore, Dingle, or Meevagh in Donegal. What orders, if any, have been placed by the Board, or by private individuals, at the privately-owned boatyard at Arklow? It is only right that on a Fisheries Estimate we should make reference to the question of boat-building because that industry gives very great employment in those areas.

I am sure the Minister will be in a position to tell us what orders have been placed with those boatyards during the past year, whether there are more or fewer people employed in the boatyards, whether there are any orders about to be placed and what exactly are the prospects of greater and continuing employment on boat-building in these yards.

I might also ask if there has been any development or progress with regard to the expansion of the boatyard at Dingle? I remember this question was under examination by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in January and February, 1954, but up to now we have not heard whether or not any progress was made. In view of the fact that the matter has been under consideration by the Minister's Department for the past three years, I should like to hear from the Minister whether there is any proposal for the extension of the Dingle yard in the development scheme of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

I should also like to know the position with regard to iceplants. We heard Deputy T. Lynch say in the House today that but for the generosity and goodness of Clover Meats, Ltd., and Messrs. Henry Denny of Waterford, some fishermen would not have an ounce of ice. What would happen if Clover Meats, Ltd., decided not to give any more ice and said they required it for their own purposes? There have been substantial landings of fish at Dunmore East when neither ice nor boxes were available. That is something which calls for comment by the Minister and an explanation from the Board.

In the early years, 1953 and 1954, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara had a very progressive development plan. They intended to provide a number of iceplants. One was erected at Ballycotton and another at Schull in County Cork. One was to be erected at Castletownbere, County Cork. Iceplants were to be erected at places around our coast. Maybe the board is working hard, without comment. However, neither in the Estimate nor elsewhere have we heard whether the iceplants were proceeded with, whether they are functioning, whether they were erected, whether there was a complete cancellation of the proposals.

We heard Deputy T. Lynch say that an ounce of ice was not available at a time when there were record landings at Dunmore East. Fishermen had to ask private concerns for ice in order to keep the fish. Due to the generosity of Clover Meats, Ltd., they were able to obtain the ice they required.

What programme, if any, have An Bord Iascaigh Mhara for the provision of even further iceplants all round our coasts? Are our existing iceplants producing ice, and, if so, what amount? What market have they for the ice? Is it available on the demand of local fishermen? If there is a general demand for iceplants convenient to places where there are substantial landings, what steps have the board taken?

The last Deputy who spoke referred to foreign trawlers operating within our fishery limits. I join in what he said and I want to repeat what I have often stated in this House, particularly when I was on the Government benches. When captured, the foreign trawlers are not severely dealt with. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that a substantial fine is imposed and the catch confiscated if, on their way out, they can do sufficient fishing to cover the fine. That, in itself, is a compensation to them.

There should be a complete confiscation of the fishing gear and, for the second offence, it ought not be returned. It is extraordinary that we should have continuous trespass by foreign trawlers. Even when our protection services make an arrest the law does not seem to be sufficient to prevent further breaches. I trust steps will be taken to ensure that the complete gear and, if necessary, the boat will be confiscated in the event of continuous breaches of our fishery rights. Our fishermen are entitled to a greater measure of support and co-operation.

In recent years, particularly since the establishment of the Inland Fisheries Trust, considerable headway has been made in the improvement, development, and stocking of our inland fisheries. If any board deserves the highest praise for valuable work it is the Inland Fisheries Trust. I want to pay a very special tribute to the members of the Trust, to the Secretary and to the Chairman who probably helped considerably in the formation of the European Fisheries Advisory Commission.

That Commission held its first meeting in Dublin with representatives from 15 or 16 countries present. It indicates the high place of the Inland Fisheries Trust as far as international recognition is concerned and they should be proud of it. I am glad the Trust has survived to view the great achievements of the past. They have done a great amount of very useful and valuable work and deserve the support and co-operation of every angler and fisherman.

I have often felt disappointed at the very poor response from our fishermen and anglers so far as membership of the Trust is concerned. The membership should be practically treble what it is particularly in view of the very valuable services the Trust renders the tourist industry. Our inland fisheries are probably the greatest possible attraction to some of our tourists. Many British and even Continental anglers come here to participate in competitions organised by angling clubs. We hope that trend will continue. We hope more of our inland fisheries will be developed so that there will be further encouragement to anglers to come from abroad. Then we can show that we can offer anglers the very best salmon fisheries in the world. We can show that as a result of the activities of the Inland Fisheries Trust the best in the world is available for them in this country.

That knowledge is becoming more widespread in recent years and the value of our inland fisheries is now becoming internationally known. The recent conference of the European Advisory Commission on Inland Fisheries will add considerably to the knowledge of the value, quantity and excellence of our inland fisheries and what we can offer generally so far as good angling prospects are concerned. I want to express my appreciation of the Inland Fisheries Trust and I hope that it will get the fullest co-operation of all anglers so that it may continue its good work.

I do not see where boards of conservators have been given any greater measure of financial aid in regard to their own protective measures. If we are to have good, well-protected rivers, we must have the necessary protection services, but the Minister does not give us any details of what has been provided for the boards for protection purposes. Twelve months ago, I suggested it would be wise if, instead of boards of conservators employing numbers of lowly-paid water-keepers, they would consider employing a number of well paid efficient water-keepers, providing them with transport and giving them greater areas to protect. I think a recommendation has been made to the Minister's Department recently by the General Council of Boards of Conservators which is representative of every board in the State and I believe it is worth considering. I also feel that the views of these boards, expressed through their general council, should be sought by the Minister in all matters relating to protection and development of our inland fisheries because these people are in a position to give very great assistance and advice. I trust their opinion will be sought on these matters.

I was anxious to hear if the Minister has any progress to report regarding the investigation that has taken place by representatives of the Department and Bord na Móna representatives of complaints by a number of angling clubs and owners of valuable private fisheries about the release by Bord na Móna of poisonous chemicals into valuable fisheries and the resultant death of large numbers of fish. I understand a committee of representatives of the Fisheries Branch and the Technical Branch of Bord na Móna was appointed in 1954 or 1955 to see what could be done to eliminate the cause of the very high death rate of fish, due to poisoning as a result of Bord na Móna activities. I do not know what has since taken place but I do know that so far as a number of valuable fisheries are concerned, there has been considerable anxiety on the part of owners in regard to the large number of fish that have died. These fisheries could have been built up as a very valuable attraction for local angling clubs and the holding of competitions and even as tourist attractions, but due to the very high death rate of fish in these rivers, it is not possible to develop them properly.

I am sure it is not beyond the bounds of possibility in this great age of science and advance that Bord na Móna and the fisheries section should find a solution to this problem, which is resulting in very serious loss to private fishery owners and to fisheries taken over by angling clubs, of fish being subject to an extraordinarily high death rate, due to Bord na Móna activities. I am not blaming Bord na Móna because their valuable work must continue but I should like the Minister to make some comment in regard to the problem and let us know what is being done.

I do not want to let this Estimate pass without referring to the question I raised some months ago in regard to the three German trawlers owned by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. At that time, I asked the Minister for Lands if it was proposed to sell them and, if so, would he state the date of their purchase, the price paid for them, the losses involved in their operation to date and when and by what means it was proposed to dispose of them and what reserve price had been placed on them. The Minister replied on February 11th, 1960. He said:

I have been informed by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara that they propose to sell the three off-shore fishing vessels purchased in Germany——

He said that the vessels had been purchased in July, 1952 and the capital outlay on them up to 31st March, 1959, amounted to £113,068 and that the losses involved in their operation up to the same date, the latest for which audited accounts were available, amounted to £77,006. He said offers had been invited for the vessels through a firm of ship brokers and it was proposed to dispose of them when acceptable offers were received. He went on to say:

It would not be in the public interest to disclose reserve prices in advance; it has, however, been announced that any reasonable offer would be considered.

Naturally, I would not expect the Minister to announce the reserve prices but we would at least expect a comment on the foolishness of the purchase and the great loss which this investment has caused for the taxpayers and the fact that at practically no period since their purchase were those three trawlers fishing together: either one of them was laid up and the other two fishing or two were laid up and one fishing. If I do not make a mistake, the engine fell completely out of one of them and had to be replaced at extraordinary expense.

We have heard nothing about the three trawlers since and I do not know whether they have been sold or not. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether since February of last year the shipbroking firm have had any success. Would he now tell us in view of the fact that they cost the alarming sum of £113,000, on top of which there was £77,000 in losses, what he got for the boats or at least whether they were sold or not? He might also tell us where they are, whether they are fishing or in dock; for what purpose they are being used, if there has been any expenditure on them during the past year and the figure for the total losses to date on them. I should have expected that an effort would have been made to dispose of them rather than have continuous losses incurred which naturally means the taxpayers have to pay over a period.

I have always felt that the purchase of these three crocks was a serious form of insanity. The results and the information given by the Minister have borne that out. I should like to hear from the Minister whether the Board still have them and what they intend to do with them. Have the Board received any offers and what are the prospects of a sale? I should like to know what steps the Minister will take to have them disposed of without delay so that the taxpayers will not be met with any further bill for their maintenance and upkeep. I agree with the speaker who said earlier that whoever was responsible for pawning these three crocks on the Board is entitled to a special ribbon for salesmanship.

There is need for expansion of the fishing industry. There is need for the provision of further employment in order to stem emigration in our fishing districts which has been continuous and very noticeable particularly over the past twelve months. I had hoped that the whole fisheries policy would be reviewed. However, the statement of the Minister gives no idea of what development is in mind. There seems to be no programme of expansion planned by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. It is obviously intended to continue the present stagnant policy which is causing our fishermen to emigrate. There are fewer employed in the fishing districts; there is less fish on the home market and less for export. That is an unsatisfactory situation from the fishermen's point of view and also from the point of view of consumers. Even though there are ice plants and even though the Board have set up a number of depots there are many areas in which the housewife cannot obtain fresh fish at the right price. An effort should be made to remedy that position.

The Minister has asked the Board to examine the question as to whether they should come out of the fish market or not. I quote from his speech:

I have asked them, for instance, to let me have their considered opinion as to whether the Board should continue to engage in the marketing of fish or leave it entirely in the hands of private enterprise.

From my experience and from my knowledge of fishermen — and I have addressed fishermen around the coasts on a number of occasions — I can say that any time I asked them either publicly or privately if they wanted the Board out of the fish market, in no instance did the fishermen say that they did. I hope and trust the Board will not go out of the market and leave the fishermen at the mercy of the fishmongers.

I want to ensure that the fishermen will get a reasonable price for their fish. If there is any profit to be made from fish it should be made by the fishermen engaged in fishing. If the Board go out of the market there may be immediately a ring which may be responsible for a considerable drop in prices with very serious repercussions on the fishermen and leading probably to further emigration from fishing districts. I hope the Board will be wise and cautious in advising the Minister in that regard. Even if the Board do recommend to the Minister that they should go out of the market, I trust the Minister will have due regard to the interests of fishermen. I was glad when the Board did engage in the marketing of fish because the fishermen always knew the Board were there to purchase and that they would have a market.

I do not see in the Minister's speech any appeal to our fishermen to engage in fishing for fishmeal purposes. There is an unlimited market for fishmeal and fishermen would never have to dump their catch into the sea, because there would be this market for it. If my memory serves me right, it takes four tons of fish to manufacture one ton of fishmeal. There is no use in building fishmeal factories unless there is fishmeal to keep the fishmeal factories going. When it is considered that it requires four tons of fish to make one ton of fishmeal it will be realised that an enormous supply of fish is required for that purpose.

It would be well worth the fishermen's while to engage in fishing in order to supply fishmeal factories. It is possible the fishermen would be expecting the same price for their fish as if it were for the home market and for consumption. That could not be so but they should be made to realise that they would have a steady income from it and that it would give them security and continuity of employment. Those fishermen who are demanding fishmeal factories around our coasts should bear in mind that caution must be exercised and that there must be continuity of supplies for such factories. The Department cannot embark upon the establishment of fishmeal factories unless it can be certain that supplies of fish will be available.

I should like to hear from the Minister what his plans are for further fishmeal development. I recollect it was the intention of the Board to erect a fishmeal factory some place on the south-west coast. I have not heard of any development in that regard recently. I saw no mention of it in the Minister's speech. I saw no reference to the output of fishmeal from the Killybegs factory, despite the fact that there is an unlimited market for fishmeal. I should like to know what proposals the Board have in mind in regard to fishmeal. Is it proposed to abandon the project on the south-west coast? Is it proposed to proceed with it? What steps have been taken to ensure that a permanent and adequate supply of fish will be available to maintain and keep a fishmeal factory going on the south-west coast? This is a matter of vital importance to the fishermen in the area as it is a project which would provide continuous and profitable employment.

I anticipated that the Minister when introducing his Estimate would have presented the House with a more detailed account of the development and policy which An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have in mind for the future. Perhaps when he comes to reply, he will have some further information to give us on that matter.

It is only right that where praise and credit are due, they should go on the record here. The officials of the Fisheries Branch have won international recognition because of their brilliance in their sphere. They have made a name for themselves which reflects great credit on the country. I have read fishing journals from abroad and I know that the advice, guidance and help of our officials is sought at international conferences. That is something of which we can be proud. We are glad that our representatives can take their place and rank with the best in the world.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Inevitably in this debate every year speakers deplore the fact that our people do not eat fish. Hardly a Deputy contributes to the debate without making some suggestions as to how we could improve our fishing industry. I listened to Deputy O.J. Flanagan for quite a long time here this evening. I expected something constructive. He criticised pretty nearly everything. He said there was nothing new. I do not suppose I have a whole lot to say that is new and, in my turn, I have to be a little critical.

If we could succeed in a campaign to get our people to eat more fish, we would do a good deal to help the industry. Here, unfortunately, we eat fish only on Friday and on the occasional day of abstinence that crops up at other seasons of the year. I think that what is responsible for the present situation is the fact that fresh fish is not readily available throughout the country and in the larger centres of population in the rural areas. Other countries have adopted various devices to help the fishing industry. Norway, for example, has a fishing industry which, speaking from memory, is worth over £5,000,000 per annum; our industry is worth only a couple of hundred thousand pounds —again, I am speaking from memory as I have not got the figures with me.

Another problem is the problem of encouraging more fishermen to go fishing. To do that, we shall have to give them the most modem boats and gear that can be provided. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have succeeded in modernising the boats reasonably well. The new boats are excellent of their kind, but I should like to see even better boats and more comfortable boats. I should like to have boats provided that could go to sea even in fairly bad weather because some of the 50-foot boats we have at present have to stay in port if the weather is any way wild, with the result that no fish is available in the market.

I have one particular grievance in connection with north county Dublin. I have been almost 17 years in the Dáil and successive Governments have promised to improve some of the harbours in my constituency. During that time, all I have got is a promise each year that the question is being examined, that it will not be long until the harbour in question is extended, reconstructed or improved. Skerries harbour is a disgrace. It is used by a large fleet of local boats and a coal boat calls there periodically with deliveries for the local merchants. I have been told that harbour was examined by officials of the Department and by an expert. The last information I had was that the Board of Works engineers had submitted a report on it to the Department and an early decision would be made on it, but I can assure the House that I am becoming very impatient with all these "early decisions."

Mr. Dillon

Who could blame the Deputy after 17 years, of which 11, I believe, were Fianna Fáil years?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I even made representations to Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Dillon

About what?

Mr. P.J. Burke

On the condition of harbours in north county Dublin.

Mr. Dillon

I have no recollection of that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

It is very discouraging for fishermen who cannot come to anchorage there whenever they find a coal boat in the harbour. Occasionally they have to put out to sea again and their boats are battered about by the elements. At one time I counted 20 fishing boats in the harbour at Skerries, which is a small harbour just about the length of the Dáil Chamber, and I can assure the House that I am fed up making representations about it. It is time something was done. Loughshinny had to close down. It was a harbour which was suitably only for use by row boats and other small craft, unlike Skerries, which could be made into a reasonably safe harbour for local boats and others from Clogher Head and Howth during storms. There is easy access to it but I believe that we are not giving the fishermen the encouragement they deserve.

I know the Minister has only recently taken over this Department. I wish him well and I do not want to be any harder on him than I was on his predecessors but I would appeal to him to give priority to Skerries harbour. Howth is a reasonably good harbour and the only complaint there is with regard to having the dredging of it carried out periodically. Balbriggan harbour is very small and is hard to get into and the only place fishermen can fall back on is Skerries, to which there is easy access during a storm. I know it would take quite a bit of money to improve it but it would be money well spent.

The fishermen at Skerries have to leave the harbour at full tide, or close to it, and have always to wait until full tide, or two hours from it, to return again. If we want to be practical, we should provide a harbour that can be used by a fishing boat at all times of the day and night and not have this drudgery and slavery which the fishermen have to undergo at present. I know the hardship and drudgery which fishermen and their families have to undergo when they are ruled by the tide and I believe every effort should be made to make this harbour usable at all hours. It would help our fishing industry and I believe it would pay the Board in the long run.

I shall leave that subject now with an appeal to the Minister to do something about it and, on the day he extends Skerries harbour, I shall go down there and say a few words in praise of him. We might even go as far as standing him a glass of grog, a bottle of champagne or something else. Having said that jokingly, I want to say that I am dead serious about Skerries harbour because its improvement is an urgent matter.

Successive Boards have tried to improve the fishing industry in so far as the marketing of fish is concerned and while I agree with Deputy 0.J. Flanagan on the point he made about handing the sale of fish over to private individuals, I feel the greatest help fishermen can have is to have the Board's officers attend in the market.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. P.J. Burke

I think that is the greatest assistance fishermen can have. An intelligent fisherman knows that rings can be formed in the marketing of fish, though I have nothing to say to any of the individuals buying fish. I am looking at this only from the national point of view. The State has an interest in it. It has put a great deal into the fishing industry and I say the Board should give all the assistance it can to any private individual who can get into the export market. I believe the man who is able to get into the export market should get every encouragement and should be given special facilities to improve his trade contacts in other countries. With such aid, a lot of our surplus fish could be exported and sold at reasonably good prices.

For some time now, I have been making representations to the Board on behalf of fishermen who, through no fault of their own, through illness, their boats getting out of order or bad weather, are not able to pay for their boats. The old system whereby a fisherman paid off so much by deduction from his catch was a reasonable system and I think the Minister should consider reintroducing it. I know the Board are slow to take a boat from any man; but I have had to appeal to the Minister to give certain fishermen a chance and I have been told afterwards that they had not made any reasonable contribution. Until we improve the fishery industry as we have improved the agricultural industry, through the use of modern, scientific aids, we shall have to be as reasonable as we can with the fishermen and encourage them to do the things we believe it is in the national interest they should do.

I welcome the training of our young fishermen and I would like to see them receiving lectures from officers of the Fisheries Branch on the great potentialities of the fishing industry and what could be achieved if they cooperated fully. They should be shown the achievements of other countries in this regard, although I know we have not the same run of fish as, for instance, Norway. However, I do not believe we are making the progress we should in our fishing industry.

I conclude by again impressing upon the Minister the urgent necessity of improving Skerries harbour. I wish him luck in solving the many difficult problems confronting him.

Mr. Dillon

There has always been and, now, I am concerned to observe, there still is, a fundamental difference between the approach of Fianna Fáil and of Fine Gael to the whole question of fisheries. We have always believed that the fishery industry of this country should be founded on the co-operative effort of the boat-owning fishermen of our sea coasts . The whole scheme was that Bord Iascaigh Mhara should function as a co-operative of Irish seamen and in that capacity that it should make available to boat-owning fishermen suitable boats and suitable gear on hire purchase terms, that it would also provide these fishermen with a guaranteed market for their catch and, in order that the problem of credit should be resolved, that the repayment of the loan raised for the purchase of boats and gear should be met out of percentage deductions from the sale of the fisherman's catch.

That is the whole foundation on which the system of co-operative credit has been provided not only for fishermen but for farmers all over the country. There is not a co-operative society in Ireland that is not now providing seeds, manure and other requisites for farmers, and the farmer will discharge the consequent debt by regular deductions from his milk cheque. That procedure has opened up to the agricultural industry a vast source of credit which is very prudently administered by a committee representative of their own neighbours who understand their circumstances and can adapt the credit facilities to their seasonal and peculiar requirements.

The purpose of Bord Iascaigh Mhara was to do exactly the same thing for the fishermen. The fishmongers never liked that, because so long as Bord Iascaigh Mhara were in the market representing the fishermen and selling their fish on commission, it meant that nobody could form a ring against the fishermen. I read with alarm on page 6 of the Minister's statement the following words:

I have recently taken the opportunity of expressing to the members of the Board my concern regarding certain branches of the Board's activities. I have asked them, for instance, to let me have their considered opinion as to whether the Board should continue to engage in the marketing of fish or whether they should leave this entirely in the hands of private enterprise.

In the name of Providence, what need has the Minister to make that inquiry of Bord Iascaigh Mhara? Has he no policy in his own Department? He is the Minister for Fisheries, not An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Surely it is the function of the Minister to lay down fundamental policy and for Bord Iascaigh Mhara to carry out that policy for the Minister?

I want to ask the Minister for Fisheries in this Government the question that he adumbrates for Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I want to ask him to let me and this House have his considered opinion as to whether Bord Iascaigh Mhara should continue to engage in the marketing of fish or whether it should be left entirely in the hands of private enterprise. What does "left in the hands of private enterprise." mean? What happens to a man who brings in a boat-load of fresh fish, demersal fish, and is told by private enterprise: "That is the price I will give and if you do not like it, you can dump it"? Where does he go from there? He can either take the price offered to him or dump the fish. He has no alternative.

Was not the whole purpose of Bord Iascaigh Mhara to deliver the fishermen from that intolerable dilemma? At present any man can go to sea and the demersal fish he lands he can hand over to Bord Iascaigh Mhara who will sell it for him by public auction. He is guaranteed he will get for it the highest price than can be obtained by offering the fish by public auction through his own agents, people whose only concern is to get for the fishermen the maximum return. Bord Iascaigh Mhara are quite indifferent as to the outcome of the sale except that their function and ambition is to get for the fishermen whom they represent the best price they can for the fish.

It appals me that a Party with a clear majority in this House could possibly authorise the Minister to get up here and say that he had asked Bord Iascaigh Mhara if they do not think it is time to get out of marketing fish and hand it over to private enterprise. Deputy Burke ventured to make some mild demurrer but it was not very eloquent. I want to say quite deliberately that if Bord Iascaigh Mhara are forbidden to market fish our coastal fishermen will be handed over, bound hand and foot, for exploitation by the wholesale fish merchants with no protection, good, bad or indifferent, and it will be the most outrageous performance ever witnessed in Dáil Eireann.

There is not a single Deputy of Fianna Fáil who is prepared to say a word in defence of it. I cannot believe that any Deputy in Fianna Fáil, who is a representative of any coastal constituency, does not know that if Bord Iascaigh Mhara are forbidden to market fish, the fishermen are absolutely betrayed. For some strange and incomprehensible reason, there are elements in Fianna Fáil who wanted to sell out the fishermen to vested interests. I have never been able to understand why it is so. Here is the unashamed announcement that the fishermen's own co-op, is to be prohibited from marketing fish. I cannot understand any rational Deputy consenting to that proposition.

Mr. Booth

Is Bord Iascaigh Mhara a co-op.?

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Booth

The Minister controls it.

Mr. Dillon

Not at all; the Minister controls policy. Bord Iascaigh Mhara represents exclusively the fishermen in the sale of fish. They act as the Minister's agent in the sale of boats. They sell the boats to the fishermen and collect from the fishermen the instalments due upon the boats, but, in the sphere of fish selling, they act as the agent of the fishermen. A great advantage from the fisherman's point of view is that whatever demersal fish he brings in, they will take it and sell it by auction.

Mr. Booth

It is not a co-op.

Mr. Dillon

All these fishermen are members of the Sea Fisheries Association.

Mr. Moran

That is not so. That is completely at variance with the facts.

Mr. Dillon

This was originally the Sea Fisheries Association, of which every fisherman was a member.

Mr. Moran

Whatever was the position of the predecessors of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the position today is different.

Mr. Dillon

It discharged precisely the same functions as it discharged when it was originally established as a fisherman's co-op, to act as the agent of the fishermen in regard to the sale of fish and as the agent of the Minister in regard to the sale of boats to fishermen. That system is now being swept away, if I interpret the Minister's statement correctly, for the purpose of enriching the wholesale fish merchants. Is there anybody in this House who believes it is a good thing to take from the fishermen their own sales organisation and hand over the whole process of the marketing of fish to people in the wholesale fish trade?

How can the fishermen benefit from that change? There is nothing to prevent any existing fishmongers purchasing fish from fishermen and selling it if they want to by auction, but they have the competition of Bord Iascaigh Mhara in the Dublin fish market. Fishermen have the guarantee that they can have recourse to Bord Iascaigh Mhara to sell their fish if anybody tries to exploit them. The Minister asks Bord Iascaigh Mhara to let him have their considered opinion as to whether the Board should continue to engage in the marketing of fish or whether they should leave this entirely in the hands of private enterprise. Could the Minister give us any information as to what advice he got from Bord Iascaigh Mhara?

Mr. Moran

The Deputy is leaving out the vital words:

I have told the Board that I wish to have a complete re-assessment of the sea fishing industry from a national point of view and that I expect them to make constructive suggestions in regard to catching potential, processing, marketing and exporting.

That is only one aspect of the matter I have asked them to look into.

Mr. Dillon

Has the Minister any doubt as to what their opinion on that will be?

Mr. Moran

I shall wait until I get their opinion.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has been in the Fisheries Branch for a considerable time. He did not come down in yesterday's shower. He can pick up the telephone and ask the chairman of the Board what his opinion is about getting out of the marketing of fish.

Mr. Moran

This is not the only aspect of the matter.

Mr. Dillon

I know perfectly well it is the thin edge of the wedge to announce that the fishermen are to be handed over, bound hand and foot, to the wholesale fish trade. It will not be done as long as we are here. If this transaction were proceeded with, it would be denounced for what it is in Dáil Eireann. What horrifies me is that any responsible Minister should even contemplate it, but every cloud has a silver lining. This Dáil has only 12 months to go and, while some damage may be done in the course of those 12 months, we have the comforting thought that even if the fishermen are handed over to the wholesale fishmongers, they will be in pain only for a very few months.

Mr. Moran

The Deputy is counting his chickens before they are hatched.

Mr. Dillon

I counted them very accurately in Carlow-Kilkenny.

Mr. Moran

The Deputy did not get the results he was looking for.

Mr. Dillon

I am prepared to watch the situation with equanimity but I doubt if I can say the same for the Minister. I grieved for him today when Deputy Teehan came in. It had all the appearance of respectful attendance at a wake.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are getting away from the Estimate for Fisheries.

Mr. Dillon

I want to make this perfectly clear. This is no joke. I worked with these fishermen for six years. I know what this means. I successfully fought this attempt to sell them for six years. I was much criticised by the vested interests in the fishing trade because I did fight. It is perfectly ludicrous for the Minister to tell this House that he does not know the views of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, even as he has constituted them, on this question of handing over the entire sale of our fisherman's catch to the wholesale fish trade. It is a shocking and outrageous proposal.

Some powerful vested interest is at work in this. It is a shocking thing that they should have secured the support of the Fianna Fáil Party for this nefarious and shameless attack on the vital interests of the seafaring population of this country. The House ought to know it is ludicrous to pretend that the seafaring population will continue to fish, if the only outlet for their demersal fish is the wholesale fish trade. It appals me that the suggestion should he made. in effect, that fishermen may not sell their catch cooperatively. That is in substance what they are doing at the present time and if the Minister consents to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara withdrawing from the marketing business they will not be able to do it hereafter.

I notice there is a reference in the Minister's statement to the Gaeltacht boats scheme in which he says that three further boats of 19-feet were allocated under the special Gaeltacht scheme financed from the National Development Fund. Are these lobster boats?

Mr. Moran

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Are there no 60-foot boats being issued under the Gaeltacht scheme? Has that scheme broken down? I know we did issue two such boats, one of which had a Gowla man as captain, and I remember another such boat being handed over at Killybegs. I believe there was another such boat issued subsequently. Has that scheme completely disappeared? If so, I imagine the Minister should give us more information about the scheme than is contained in his statement today.

The fishmeal factory set up in Killybegs is in a very peculiar position. As I understand the situation, the fishmeal factories which were established here were to serve the same purpose that they serve in Norway—to provide a guaranteed market for whatever catch of fish the fishermen brought in. It was envisaged that a reasonable price could be paid for surplus herring; that they would be able to go out and catch herring when they were available and have the assurance that if the market for fresh fish and curing had been fully supplied any surplus would be taken over and converted into fishmeal. Fortunately, from the point of view of the fishermen themselves, I understand the market for fresh herring and curing herring has developed immensely as a result of the unpredictable migration of herring from certain fishing grounds in the North Sea and we are able to export herring at a much more satisfactory price than we would get for it as fishmeal. But if, in consequence, fishmeal factories appear to be temporarily bereft of supplies for their own needs, it should be possible to remedy that by catching more and more fish.

I have not heard the Minister attempt to explain why it is this market for fish and curing herring has improved and that the fishmeal factories are bereft of supplies. Why cannot we go out and catch more herring and demersal fish suitable for conversion into fishmeal? Is it suggested that the capacity of our boats is overtaxed or why are we not catching more fish? I assume, if supplies are not reaching the fishmeal factories, it is because we are not catching enough fish to supply the alternative of fresh and curing markets which are available. The House is entitled to some explanation of that because a good deal of money has been invested in equipping fishermen to fish and if they are not fishing to capacity we ought to know why.

I do not know what Cu Feasa is supposed to be doing but the Minister in the course of his statement said that part of its duty is to improve the charts by determining the hazards of the sea bottom and entering on the appropriate charts the nature of these hazards. He says also, as an example of the work to be undertaken, that an investigation of the herring stocks along the south-east coast will be carried out. To the best of my knowledge and belief, that means nothing at all and a subsequent paragraph in the Minister's own statement appears to confirm that view because he goes on to say it is not the primary object of the vessel to seek out and notify fishermen immediately that shoals of herring exist here, there or elsewhere.

In the name of Providence, what are they carrying out an investigation for if they will not bother to notify fishermen of the existence of shoals? The veriest tyro knows that you may have colossal stocks on the south-east coast to-day and a week later the herring may disappear and may never be seen there for the next ten years. It seems to be a fatuous occupation to locate herring off the south-east coast and tell nobody about it but place it on the records of the Department two years later that "while cruising off the south-east coast we located large shoals of herring", by which time the herring may be migrated to God knows where.

I take it that all Deputies know that at present nobody is aware what makes the herring come to particular fishing grounds or what makes them go from it. All we do know is that fishing grounds which may be rich in herring this year may become completely barren next year and for the next five, ten, or 15 years thereafter and, vice versa, fishing grounds at which herring have not been seen for a decade or a generation may suddenly prove to be abundantly supplied with herring. But Cu Feasa is going to sally out to discover the presence of herring and she is under no obligation immediately to notify the fishermen that stocks of fish exist here, there, or elsewhere. She will cherish the secret to her bosom but she will come along after the herring have gone and say: "We saw herring as we were passing down by Rosslare or Dungarvan." That does not appear to be a very good use of Cu Feasa.

To tell the truth I think Cu Feasa is a very large piece of bluff on the part of a previous Minister for Fisheries which the present Minister for Fisheries is carrying on to cover up Deputy Childers, his predecessor. He dearly loves anything associated with publicity for himself and Cu Feasa was one of the publicity stunts which he launched. It was to engage in fishery research. If this is the kind of fishery research envisaged for Cu Feasa I do not envy the Minister for Fisheries in his object of nurturing this brain-child of Deputy Childers particularly as he also has in his bosom three brain-children of Deputy Childers' predecessor, Deputy Bartley, now Minister for the Gaeltacht.

I should be interested, with Deputy Oliver Flanagan, to find out what has become of Deputy Bartley's three follies. These were supposed to be the foundation upon which was to be built a great new Fianna Fáil policy for fishing. This dates back to July 1952. At that time Deputy Bartley was the lord of the manor and he announced that one of the great difficulties we had in this country was that the supply of fish landed by the inshore fishermen was not sufficient to supply our domestic requirements and that the urgent necessity was to provide extra catching facilities to fill this gap. I said to him at the time "If there is such a gap, why do you not allow the fisher-men's co-operative to buy fish to fill the gap while at the same time exhorting them to fill the gap by catching more fish themselves? Ad interim, while they are being built up, why not let them buy fish and bring it in to avoid any temporary shortage on the domestic market?” That would not do at all, in Deputy Bartley's view, and accordingly we bought three trawlers, so called. The capital outlay on those trawlers up to 31st March, 1959, amounted to £113,068. Deputies will know that these three brain-children survived three years of my administration as Minister in charge of fisheries.

Mr. Moran

Without being reengined by the Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

My recollection is that the first year I was in charge of this Estimate, I explained that I did not believe in undoing my predecessor's work simply because it was my predecessor's work, but that I was damned if I could understand what these vessels were for. One was perennially in dry dock; the other could not go to sea; and the third was fluttering around without any very visible results. I was prepared to give the experiment a chance to function or to collapse. They were not my direct responsibility because they were operated by Bord Iascaigh Mhara. I have a distinct recollection that at one stage the engine fell out of one vessel and we had to send it abroad to have it reengined; another ran on the rocks and we had to dig it off the rocks: and I doubt if the third ever left port at all.

In order to show my goodwill towards the enterprise, if it had any prospect of success, I even had a cup of tea on one of the vessels at the North Wall. I was very hospitably entertained with a nice cup of tea, some bread and butter and they offered me an egg to my tea if I would take it. I remember that the chairman and I together were in the cabin, or whatever you call it, and we had tea and bread and butter. I wished him well. I said that I hoped things would improve. I could not screw myself up to expressing enthusiasm because I did not believe in it, but I tried to discharge my obligations with courtesy because, I bona fide and honestly was resolved to give them every chance of proving themselves, if that were possible.

My apprehensions have proved to have been well founded because the losses involved in the operation of these three brain-children of Deputy Hartley up to 31st March, 1959, amounted to £77,006, including £37,164 charged for depreciation and £18,000 interest paid to the Central Fund. I am obliged to recall to the memory of the House that in the spring of 1957, I gave directions for these boats to be sold. I said they were a standing charge, that they served no useful purpose at all, and that they should be got rid of. I see now that the Minister has accepted that view and the boats are in the hands of brokers. No suitable offer had been received for them up to 11th February last. I do not know whether or not the Minister has a more propitious tale to tell us now. Would he indicate if they have yet been disposed of?

Mr. Moran

I can indicate that negotiations are going on at the present time to sell them——

Mr. Dillon

I wish the Minister well——

Mr. Moran

—but the Deputy's contribution will not help their disposal.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister will wait for a moment, let me hasten to add that in some other circumstance or for some other service, these boats may well, after our capital outlay of £113,000 upon them, prove excellent. I wish the Minister success in his attempts to sell them and I think he will agree that any experienced boat owner or purchaser will not be profoundly influenced by my opinion as to the present condition of these barques. An experienced purchaser will examine them himself; he will have them examined by a competent assessor; and he will stand by his own judgment when he comes to make an offer. In any case, we may rest assured that since they have been nestling in the Minister's bosom for the past eight years, it will not cause him any undue embarrassment to retain them for a while longer, if that proves necessary, in order to get a good price for them.

My duty is to point out that this was money wasted. It was folly the first day it was embarked upon, and it is the kind of imbecility into which this House should not be walked in the future. We should not allow a fiasco of this kind to pass unnoticed. Unless we learn by experience with transactions of this character, we shall be walked into them again. The House should realise that this is not the first time we have lost a hatful of money through this kind of codology because Fianna Fáil bought trawlers before. They bought a team of trawlers in the thirties which made staggering losses and were nicely and quietly disposed of. Because they were so quietly disposed of, everyone forgot about them.

Deputy Bartley returned to the charge in 1952 and cut another caper which cost us close on £200,000 to date, less whatever the Minister may succeed in selling those boats for. I can forgive any man for making a fool of himself once, provided he learns by experience, but it causes me some concern if these kinds of follies are to be perennially perpetrated at the public expense. We should not have a recurrence of this kind of transaction.

I should like the Minister to clarify that paragraph to which I referred earlier in regard to the operations of Cu Feasa. If Cú Feasa discovers herring shoals along the south-east coast, why on earth should she not tell us about it? Why should she complain ab initio that:

It is not the primary object of the vessel's work to seek out and immediately notify to the fishermen that stocks of fish exist here, there or elsewhere. If she does locate shoals of fish, the information will, of course, be made known. She may also be able to explore fishing beds or find out new fishing grounds, but that will be more or less incidental to her work which is a serious scientific effort to study the factors affecting the whole industry of catching fish.

That is so much brouhaha and codology. Might she not serve some useful purpose if she located shoals of fish where they were not otherwise known to be? The Minister should shed the mantle of the Minister for Transport and Power now. He is having lots of fun attending luncheons, opening railway stations-or closing railway stations—and opening anything anyone will give him a key to. open.

Mr. Moran

These are irrelevancies.

Mr. Dillon

He launched the Cu Feasa and I have no doubt——

Mr. Moran

The Minister for Transport and Power has nothing to do with this debate.

Mr. Dillon

It was his intention then to stoke up the boilers of Cu Feasa, if she has a boiler—and I am sure if she has not, he filled the tank. We may depend on it that he was somehow involved in getting her put to sea and he then passed on to other occupations. The Minister should not feel himself constrained to maintain a pattern inaugurated by that Minister, who has had the publicity and has passed on to fresh fields and pastures new.

Deputy P.J. Burke has gone. As I listened to him describe the 17 years he has been pursuing this matter I felt sorry for him. He gave a very moving description of how, for 17 years, he has been wooing successive Ministers in charge of Fisheries on behalf of Skerries harbour. He reminded me of the lady who was rebuked by her Pastor for an unduly long engagement. He pointed out that she was now 17 years engaged, that all she had to show for it were 17 handbags and that it was certainly time to do something about the matter. She used to get a present of a handbag every Christmas. She was advised to go to her affianced and to insist on early matrimony or else to give him up.

I would impart this piece of advice to Deputy P.J. Burke. He said that for 17 years—11 of which were occupied by a Fianna Fáil Government-he had been waiting, making representations and receiving assurances that something would be done for the harbours of north county Dublin, but with no result. Deputy P.J. Burke is getting tired of waiting. As in the case of the lady whose engagement was unduly long, he should now make up his mind to take the plunge and sever his connection with these Ministers or else insist on having the matter attended to forthwith. If the present Minister in charge of Fisheries does not meet him he should approach Deputy Childers, the Minister for Transport and Power. Perhaps, in his new capacity. Deputy Childers will do for Deputy P.J. Burke what he has failed to do for him in the past.

My interest in the Vote for the Sea Fisheries Branch is to expose the, to me, monstrous conspiracy to place the fishermen in the hands of the wholesale fish trade which I believe would exploit them. It is the policy of this Party to maintain our fishing industry on the firm basis of the boat-owning fishermen of our coasts. If Fianna Fáil sell out upon them we can only look forward with anticipation to the changes that will ensue at the general election, in the assurance that such sell-out will be remedied at the earliest possible opportunity.

I join with Deputy O.J. Flanagan in his tributes to the Inland Fisheries Trust. It is doing very good work. I have heard no criticism of it but I hear much in its praise. The work is a highly-skilled operation. So far as I can find out, the Trust is achieving notable results in the improvement of our game fish amenities and in the sphere of coarse fish.

There is one aspect of coarse fishing development to which I do not think sufficient attention has been given. I mentioned it last year and I mention it again now. I am afraid our new Minister for Transport and Power will close the canals. He has closed a good many railways. He has authorised Coras Iompair Eireann to suspend services on the canals. I am afraid he will allow the canals to become derelict and ultimately to be filled up. That would be a tragedy from many points of view. One aspect which would be a material loss is the coarse fishing potential.

The two canals traverse wide areas of Ireland which have in them relatively few other tourist amenities. We are inclined to forget that the people who enjoy coarse fishing come very largely from the Midlands of England and attach an importance to it which might seem to us almost extravagant. I do not know if Deputies realise that every week-end on the Manchester Ship Canal you will see large numbers of coarse fishermen. They belong to clubs. They will be seen solemnly fishing a beat of a few yards of the Manchester Ship Canal. They are bound by a mutual undertaking if ever they catch a fish to put it back again until it is literally true to say that some of these fishermen could call the fish by name. They catch Charlie on a Monday and Tom on a Tuesday. They put the fish back. If they keep the fish the position is that the fishing is so intensive on these canals that they would very quickly be denuded of fish.

Such a fishing amenity is available in our system of canals. They are stocked with a considerable amount of coarse fish and are very easily susceptible to replenishment of coarse fish. It fits in perfectly with the operations of the Inland Fisheries Trust in relation to sporting fishery waters. Instead of exporting the coarse fish they take out of trout waters all they do is to transfer them to the canals. We thereupon have hundreds of miles of ideal coarse fishing waters which are an immense asset and there is no question of climbing fences and crossing ditches to avail of the facility.

We are dealing very largely with an angling population which could be turned into a valuable tourist asset. They would be a very valuable source of income. They do not demand a very elaborate standard of hotel accommodation and would gladly be temporary lodgers with householders in the immediate vicinity of the canals. They would immensely enjoy that accommodation which is far removed from the congested atmosphere of urban Manchester, Bootle or the black country. I often think we do not sufficiently appreciate the immense assets the canals could be as a tourist attraction with their coarse fishing amenities.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy will be glad to know that enough canal water will be preserved to ensure the continuance of the coarse fishing campaign in the canals, irrespective of the use of the canals for navigational purposes.

Mr. Dillon

When the Minister was not present, I mentioned that he was so good at raising bus fares and closing rail services that I feared he would next authorise the filling in of the canals, after suspending traffic on them. I am happy to hear he is taking steps to ensure they will not be so filled in. However, I notice with some dismay that the Minister said he proposed to take steps to maintain sufficient mileage to preserve the fishing amenities. What does he mean by that? Does he intend to fill in some of the canals?

Mr. Childers

That question would take too long to answer now. There are considerable stretches that must be preserved for water reasons.

Mr. Dillon

And the rest will be filled in?

Mr. Childers

There will still be long stretches that must be preserved for water supplies that could not be substituted by Córas Iompair Éireann or by any other economic means. In that connection there are the demands of the Coarse Fishing Development Association.

Mr. Dillon

I am obliged to the Minister. I sometimes feel a doubt as to whether I have been gifted with a clairvoyance or the attribute of Cassandra. I thought there was some proposal about going up the mountain to fill up part of the canal. It is just the kind of thing I thought Fianna Fáil would put their hands to. If you fill it up you cannot replace it. I think it would be an act of supreme folly to be fooled into doing something irrevocable of that kind in pursuit of some absurd experiment.

I do not want to take the Minister at a disadvantage. Before he came in I was talking of the Cú Feasa, the exploratory boat, and of the pleasure it would give Deputy Burke to receive it if the Minister sent it to Skerries Harbour, having put the harbour into the condition that Deputy Burke so confidently expected it to be put. I was going on to say that I feared that it was intended to close up the canal and I am sorry to say that the Minister's intervention rather justifies me in that fear. I would urge on the Minister that, before giving his consent to any such project, he should think well. I think the canal ought not be filled up at all. I think we should preserve it. I doubt if, in modern society, it can very successfully be used as a commercial mode of transport, certainly by a publicly-owned company like C.I.E. although, mark you, it is rather——

An Ceann Comhairle

Are we not travelling away from the Estimate?

Mr. Dillon

The canals——

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy would confine himself to the canals in connection with fishing it would be in order but the Deputy is proceeding beyond that.

Mr. Dillon

All I want is to have the canal preserved as a coarse fishing amenity. The Minister tells me he is going to fill it up, except in so far as it can be used for transport, for water supply and as a fishing amenity. Such parts as he cannot relate to these purposes may very well be filled up. I am putting it to him that the canals should be preserved as an amenity for fishing even though he persuades himself that their usefulness as a mode of internal transport has ceased. He should pause well before making up his mind. I was merely going to refer to the fact that 50 families in Graiguenamanagh used to live out of supplying barges on the canals——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a different matter.

Mr. Dillon

They are not living there any longer. I want to make a special plea on behalf of the canals as a tourist amenity and as a coarse fishing centre. I believe they have great potentialities that could be vastly developed. I do not believe their maintenance for that purpose would involve us in any serious liability.

I wonder what has happened to the pond fish culture scheme? Deputy Flanagan and I were responsible for inaugurating the fish farm at Roscrea and, as a by-product of that fish farm, I think we established a system of rearing rainbow trout because we felt it would help to meet the cost of operating the fish farm. That was a good idea and it worked out pretty well. It was not until the present Minister for Transport and Power became Minister for Lands — and I want to give him full credit for it— that we were presented with the alternative of operating fish farms on the farms of Ireland. I cannot see any future in that; in fact, it strikes me as being slightly ludicrous. I may be wrong but I should be much interested to hear from the present Minister what progress has been made in that direction. Then, I think whoever is responsible for the scheme should observe the strictest discretion in not giving rise to undue hope in the minds of the farmers who are persuaded to engage in this occupation because I believe it to be more complex and hazardous than some of the statements of the Minister or of his predecessor would lead ordinary people to believe.

There is much I could say in regard to some of the boards of conservators but I ask only one question in that respect today. I should be glad to hear from the Minister how the Limerick Board of Conservators are getting on. They were not getting on so very well when I last heard of them. My experience of them led me to the conclusion that they were a pain in the neck. I do not know how they are getting on now but, unless there is some very marked improvement, the present Minister, I think, would be quite justified in taking drastic measures to ensure that the essential interests of the salmon fisheries of that area were placed in more reliable hands, unless the Limerick Conservators have undergone a very considerable process of reform.

The last topic I want to touch upon is this. When we took over the Foyle Fisheries from the London Corporation that owned it and made it the joint property of the Government of the Republic and of the Northern Six Counties the proposition, as I understood it, was to ensure that our own people north and south of the Border would be given free access to it on reasonable terms with due regard to the welfare of the fishery itself. So far as I know, that appears to be the case for the past six or seven years since we took over the fishery. The Government made a comfortable profit out of it; it was one of the best bargains these Governments ever made for the taxpayers although those of us who had a hand in it got very little thanks. In addition to making a comfortable profit out of it, it became our right and privilege to make the fishing freely available to the boat-owning fishermen of the estuary. That seemed to go on very well for six years or so but I hear a number of complaints this year that, under the restriction it has been thought necessary to impose, justice is not being done.

I want to say quite clearly that I am quite prepared to support the Minister and the Foyle Fishery Board in any action which may be necessary for the preservation of the fishery. I was long enough the Minister responsible for fisheries to know that men getting a living on an estuary of that kind often take too short a view of what is wise in connection with a several fishery and are inclined only too readily to over-fish it with ultimately disastrous results to their own livelihood but, if it is to be restricted, then the utmost precautions should be taken to ensure that equity is done as between one licensee and another.

A case recently came to my attention, particulars of which I think I sent to the Minister, of a man who lived in those parts and who for years followed the customary pattern of life, in that he went to Scotland for so many months of the year and instead of coming back for the harvest, as my neighbours in the west of Ireland ordinarily do, came over for the fishing and he and his brother, both of them men of very modest circumstances, got a licence to fish. According to his story, every year since the Foyle Fisheries Commision was set up, until this year, he got a licence, and then he was refused.

I submitted this man's case and I was promptly and courteously informed by the Department that their records seem to show that this man had a licence in only one of the past three years. He asserts he had a licence in each of the past three years and for several years before that. I pointed out to him that I would raise his case with the Department but that he must bear in mind that the Foyle Fisheries Commission had a duty to protect the stocks of fish in the river and that if they did not apply some restriction, the river and the estuary could easily be fished out. He said he appreciated that but he thought it was a hardship that neighbours of his own who had 50 and 100 acres of land should get a licence to fish, whereas he who was a migratory labourer and small farmer should be refused.

There was some force in that contention and it did seem a great hardship that a man whose life was founded on the practice of migration to Scotland and coming home to fish and going back to Scotland, should have that part of his life stopped by a refusal to give him a licence. That made me think it was appropriate to sound a very special note of warning that even if restrictions are necessary on the total volume of fishing — and I am quite prepared to accept that may be so and to support the Board in exercising prudent restraint for the protection of fisheries—every precaution should be taken to see that there is a strict equality of the treatment of all applicants.

This matter is not exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Minister because he is only represented on the Board by his representative but he can bring pressure to bear on the Board to see that justice is done and that an application of a small man for his right to fish will receive the same careful consideration as that of the most influential person. I do not doubt that the Minister will take steps to see that that is done but it is as well to sound this note of warning that it is a useful thing not only to see justice done in these matters but to make it manifest to those who have a grievance that justice is being done and that the smallest and the least influential applicant for a licence is being and will continue to be treated on the basis of absolute equality with anybody else, whether he is influential or wealthy or comes from any section of society that would ordinarily be regarded as in some degree privileged.

Major de Valera

I do not intend to follow Deputy Dillon's line of thought. He based his whole speech on a gratuitous assumption and developed his thesis from that.

After so many years experimentation or experience, we must ask ourselves what is the fundamental approach to the problem of fisheries to be? The Minister is obviously seeking information that may help to answer that question. However, I want to ask a couple of other supplementary questions. We have been thinking of this problem of fisheries primarily from the point of view of the existing units along our coasts, more perhaps in terms of trying to maintain local fishing interests than of trying to develop the potentialities that may be there for the country as a whole.

That was an important enough approach. It was obviously of some importance to the country to try to preserve activity, particularly in western areas where it was difficult to provide alternative employment if that activity ceased but now we must ask ourselves a few further questions, in view of the fact that there seems to be a tendency for fishermen to forsake the sea, just as there has been a tendency in certain parts for people to go from the land to the more populous areas. In that situation, we must ask a question: what potentiality is there for the nation as a whole? We have got to the stage where if we do not answer the question of economic return from fisheries from the over-all, national point of view, we shall not be able to answer it at all. We must ask: is there a big potential to exploit? Is there a potential for a fishing industry here that will be profitable in the national sense?

I shall not attempt to answer that question myself but it is a question to be asked and it is a question to be answered before people make facile comparisons between the amount of money we as a people are earning from our fisheries compared with the money being earned by other countries like Norway, Iceland, and so on, from their fisheries. When we have answered that question as to whether the potential is there, we shall then be in a position to answer the question as to whether we should approach it from the local point of view, from the point of view of trying to maintain local fishermen in the greatest possible numbers under the most profitable conditions to them, or whether we should look at it from the point of view of a national industry giving a national return.

The Minister is very wise to ask questions and should seek for information because it may well be that we must have another look at the whole fishery policy. If there is a potential there that is capable of exploitation, a further question arises: how can you organise whatever outlet there is at home and how can you organise for export?

I should like to make a few comments then in regard to home sales in particular to supplement the remarks made in this debate from year to year. Before I do so, however, I think the Minister is more than correct in seeking to find out from the Board and from other quarters what the economics of marketing are and what the procedure of marketing is. In spite of all that has been said and in spite of the blame laid at the doors of people generally that they do not eat fish, or as much fish as we should like them to eat, there are other considerations involved. First, there is the question of the freshness of the fish. I am speaking now from the point of view of the consumer. If the fish is absolutely fresh, that will be a big factor in its favour. I am not suggesting for a moment that the fish available in Dublin is not fresh in the generally accepted term. What I am suggesting is that if the fish were so fresh as to have its first flavour — and this is something which rapidly goes off no matter how well processed or preserved it is —it would go a long way towards solving the problem of its marketing.

After that there is, of course, the question of price. It seems to me, and I am thinking now in terms of what I hear in Dublin, that the future of fish so far as the home market is concerned will depend primarily on its freshness, on its flavour, on its price and on its availability to the housewife in the shops. If you can get fish fresh to the taste by comparison with fish imported from Grimsby, if the price is such as to make it an attractive proposition for the housewife, and if she can buy that fish in a local shop, you will be able to secure a marked improvement in the home market, particularly in the bigger centres of population and, above all, in Dublin.

Upon what does all that depend? It depends, it seems to me, on the distribution system. Behind that system, it depends on where the fish is landed and how the organisation works in bringing it from the areas in which it is caught in the quickest possible way to the housewife for ultimate consumption. That is an aspect of the matter which might benefit from some new investigation. Such an investigation might evolve an expansion in sales.

Consider the position of Dublin. If one is dependent upon fish from far afield, it seems to me that one is at an immediate disadvantage. I do not want to say anything about particular local areas or attempt to express an opinion as to how the actual catching and landing of fish is organised, but I should like to suggest that the question of getting it to the centres of consumption in the quickest possible time is a question that merits very thorough examination. I realise that there is always the difficulty that, if you have not enough initially, it is not easy to organise a very expert distribution service without loss. I believe there has been some improvement in the situation in recent years. I do not know whether or not fish still goes from the south coast as far as Grimsby and back to us again. I have not been in touch with the position of late, but I know that several years ago it was demonstrated to me that such things did happen. I mention it now to emphasise the importance of the distribution factor.

If the distribution factor is properly organised and if it is possible to put on the market a product under the three heads I have mentioned, one is then left with the question of the marketing system. When the Minister asks whether or not this should be left to private enterprise he is obviously asking a question as to what is the most efficient way of securing sales? I think Deputy Dillon is pushing things too far when he tries to base his whole attack on the implication that no effort would be made to safeguard the interests of the fishermen themselves. I think I can leave that matter to the Minister to deal with.

My only purpose in rising is to point out that the fundamental question never seems to be answered as to what potential is really there and what is the economic outlet for the successful exploitation of that potential. I shall not repeat myself with regard to the home market but, unless the housewife can be given a competitive product under the three heads I have mentioned — freshness, price and convenience — there is relatively little hope of promoting the sale of fish beyond what it is at the moment in our big centres of population. Perhaps that is the really appropriate note for a city Deputy to emphasise.

There is one other point I should like to make. We are rather conservative in the matter of the fish we eat. There are possibilities beyond the scope of what people usually regard as the Friday diet. Subsidiary to the organisation of the market in the best way possible, on the basis of the three points I have mentioned, I think a lot could be done by publicising the advantages and the varieties that are to be found in fish diets. There is also the possibility of exploiting more than we do the shell fish harvests from our coasts, but that aspect of the thing can only be successful when, first of all, the basic marketing conditions are put right. It would probably be a waste of time, and perhaps of money, merely to attempt to publicise these things if one has not got the important factor of distribution organised first.

I should like to answer Deputy Dillon, but, on reflection, I think when one stops to analyse his lurid and graphic language, he has said very, very little. In fact, he has said nothing. It is rather disappointing, but he speaks in generalities and there is very little left to which I have to reply. He simply set up a thesis which is at variance with the facts, a gratuitous assumption, taking a phrase of the Minister's, which the Minister will deal with himself. Then he rides away on that hobby horse and I shall not delay the House in attempting to unhorse him.

However, let me confess that in one matter, but for a different reason, I join with Deputy Dillon in a plea for maintaining the canals. I am not at all sure that the graphic picture of the people who at present line the Manchester Ship Canal coming to Ireland has any future substance in it at all. Frankly I do not think it has, but, from another aspect, the canals could be of considerable value. I may respectfully agree with you, a Cheann Comhairle, that this has nothing to do with the Estimate, but the canals as emergency water supplies to the city of Dublin might be of considerable importance. That, Sir, would be at least as relevant as a number of Deputy Dillon's points, so please forgive me for introducing it.

Having mentioned what I think are the requisites for any real exploitation of our fish resources on the home market — I have tried to emphasise that there are certain economic requisites— I must stress that if we are to have an industry with an export value, it will have to be competitive in an outside market. These are hard facts but they are facts that have to be faced. In a nutshell then, the problem of our fishing industry, like the problem of every other industry, is that of economic competition and survival in the market. It is the problem of economic competition against what I might call the sales resistance of the consumer and in the export market, we shall have to face competition with others in the same field. Unless the competition can be economic in both, there can be no real future for our fishing industry. Of course, if it is not economic, it can never be very much more than a supplementary service for certain people living around our coasts and that, I do not think, would be the aim of any Minister in charge of this Department.

I do not think I am doing a disservice to anybody if I point out what some people hesitate to point out, namely, that it is a question of economics, and no matter what the Minister or any State Department does, unless the potential which is there is developed in a economic manner, one cannot expect very much more from it than what has been had to date. That is, perhaps, an unpalatable fact.

As for the rest, I shall leave the Minister to reply, but, unlike Deputy Dillon, I think he is very wise to ask all the questions, to get all the information, and even to ask those questions to which we might not like to get affirmative answers. They are questions which must be asked and it is in the light of the answers to such questions, and in the light of a rational appreciation of the problems, that we shall get an effective solution. The answers in all cases may not be the ones we would like to get but they could be very effective, and I should like to join with other Deputies in complimenting the Minister in that he appears to them and to me — in this, Deputy Dillon seems to be alone — to be approaching this matter in a very realistic way.

Mr. Crotty

Some months ago, the Minister received a deputation from people in Kilkenny whose object was to persuade him to take over what is known locally in Inistioge as "The Big Net". These people belong to the various fishing organisations on the Nore and they are anxious that a reasonable amount of fish should be allowed to pass up the river for their own enjoyment as anglers, as well as for the purpose of attracting tourists to that part of the country. According to figures published, at the present time the tourist is a very large spender of money and I am sure the local people would like to attract some share of the money he spends.

However, I understand that when the Minister received this deputation, he told them that if he were to take over "The Big Net", he would have to take over all the other nets on the Nore. I am sure he is right in that but I should like to press him to look into the matter further because that particular net takes a considerable quantity of fish during the season. The others do not take such a big amount as this one and it would be a great advantage to that part of the country, as well as to fishermen further up stream, if there were a free pass there.

I appreciate that it would cost a lot of money in compensation, but, in the long run, it would be money well spent. People would still catch the fish and a certain amount would still be exported. I understand that quite a large amount of salmon is exported from Inistioge but if a free pass were provided, a lot of salmon would be caught by other people along the Nore and it would add to the amenities of the river. Also, as I said, it would attract tourists from seaside resorts and bring them inland. These people raised this matter in the Minister's private office and, having had their meeting with him, I should like to add my voice to theirs in asking him and the Government to look into the matter. As I say, it may cost money but it would be money well spent in providing amenities for the fishermen and attracting tourists to that part of the country.

Mr. Moran

On this Estimate it might be wise for me to follow the opening theme of Deputy Lynch of Fine Gael who seemed to take the view that we should get away from what different Ministers did or did not do in connection with this business and see where we are now. Indeed, that is the spirit in which I approached the matters now before the House. I think the time has arrived when we should forget all the recriminations and all the different views expressed by conflicting interests and have a new look at this whole business. I should like to remind the House that the conditions obtaining in this industry now are vastly different from what they were 20 or 25 years ago. Times have changed, new techniques have been developed, marketing systems have changed and the time has arrived to review from A to Z the organisations we have to deal with this business. That is the reason I have told An Bord Iascaigh Mhara that I wish to have a complete reassessment made of the industry, and I expect them to make constructive suggestions in regard to catching potential, processing, marketing, distribution—in other words, a completely new look at the whole business.

Of course, Deputy Dillon picked out a few words of mine and tried to build up a national scare for fishermen. I have asked the Board about the operation of certain branches of their activities in the light of modern developments. I have not suggested to the Board that a co-operative between the fishermen and those concerned in the business, as suggested by Deputy Dillon, should be ruled out. What I have asked them to do is to take a new look at the whole business from the catching right on to the end product. In my view, the time has come when we should lay down as national policy, and if possible as agreed national policy, the direction in which we are going. Tied up with all this is the Bjuke Report dealing with our major harbours. That report is now under consideration by me and the Government and I expect to have something to say publicly about it very shortly. I should tell the House that it is my intention to publish this Report, as it is also my intention to publish the F.A.O. report on the marketing side of the business.

I am satisfied, notwithstanding the increases we have had in catches, that one of our weaknesses lies in the intake of fish. We have got to look at that, just as we have got to look at distribution, as Deputy de Valera said, and at processing and marketing. As far as the Bjuke Report is concerned, he has picked out a number of major harbours for major development. In this business we must move with the times. In regard to our competitors on the Continent — you will find this right across Holland, for instance, from Ijmuiden to Scheveningen — the position is that the industry is concentrated at certain ports. In those ports you have all the methods of dealing with the raw material such as freezing plants, canning plants, fish meal plants, oil plants as well as boat repairing. Marketing takes place at the port where the catch is landed. It is my view, therefore, that it will be necessary to have a number of major ports here properly equipped with all modern devices necessary for the development of the industry.

Deputy Dillon referred to marketing. May I say — he does not seem to be aware of it—that there is a tendency growing up for the purchasers to come down to the port of landing to buy their catches. I believe that tendency will develop and that is why, amongst other things, I have asked the Board to have a look at the marketing side because, as well as developing our major ports, I believe we must also reorganise and develop our marketing system. We have already interested more people in the establishment of processing plants to deal with the harvest of the sea. If we are to make progress in this direction, we must be geared for the job. It may be that in some cases plants were erected and there were not sufficient supplies to enable them to work on an economic basis. But in this connection it is only fair to say that, notwithstanding the criticisms that have been made, in some cases these plants were a vital necessity to entice people into the occupation of fisherman by the provision of proper facilities. The more facilities there are available, the more people we hope to get into this field.

In this connection I should say that we have offered very substantial inducements to young men to come into this business. I am making further efforts to get more of them into it because if we are to make full use of our fishery potential, it is essential that we get more young men interested in the business. The provisions made under the existing schemes are pretty attractive, and indeed it is beyond my understanding why we did not get a greater response to the opportunities offered. For instance, in the case of experienced fishermen training as skippers, they get £7 a week at sea and £4 a week when they are ashore at Galway with, I think, an allowance for dependants bringing the wage up to a possible total of £10. In the case of young boys training as fishermen, they get £4 per week away from home and £12 10s. per week in their home port while undergoing the course of training.

We must remember we are training these young men to be ultimately able to take over boats costing £13,500 and fitted with every modern device. We are training them to enable them to go to sea and make a living for themselves and their crews. There is no other form of activity in this country that I know of which offers such prospects to a young lad who is not afraid of the sea and who is not afraid of hard work. I hope during the coming winter to tie in this scheme more tightly with the vocational schools. I have started it already and I am glad to say that we are getting a response from places that did not have the fishing tradition. I hope to extend that kind of activity in connection with getting more and more of these young boys and fishermen properly equipped technologically to go to a very remunerative occupation at sea. That prospect is undoubtedly there for them.

Deputy T. Lynch made some complaint that I did not deal with the herring fishing off Dunmore East. In fact, of the £345,000 earned on herring, an increase of £100,000 on last year, the most of that herring came from Dunmore East. Deputy Dillon waxes facetious about the Cú Feasa going down to Dunmore East to find out if there are herring there. We know that there are herring there. We want to know what brings them there at different times of the year. We want to know about the plankton content of the water in the area. I felt it my duty to direct that the Cú Feasa should get at one of the most valuable fisheries we have off the coast to start off with.

There is also the question arising in Dunmore East as to whether conservancy measures may be necessary, in view of the intensive fishing going on there. All these are matters to be covered by the scientists and the crew of the Cú Feasa. It is not to find out whether there are herring there but to seek the best way of preserving this very valuable fishery and give us more information than we have as to why there are movements of herring at certain times, at certain depths and within certain limits. The suggestion, therefore, that the Cú Feasa is being sent out to tell the people that there are herring there is just being facetious about the whole business.

There was a complaint from Deputy T. Lynch about the iceplant at Dunmore East. It probably refers to the time before the Board's plant at Dunmore East began to operate effectively. There was some trouble in the initial operations of the plant. It was not working satisfactory for a while. Normally, supplies of ice would be adequate but there might possibly have been shortages at a time of glut and, as Deputies know, there have been concentrations of fishermen at Dunmore East and off Dunmore East to a very larger extent this year and last year than there ever were before. It is only right to say that ice produced by Bord Iascaigh Mhara is a subsidised product — subsidised to a price of £4 a ton in the interests of the industry. I feel that this complaint may not arise again. At all events, the whole matter of iceplants and the facilities to be provided in larger ports, wherever they may be, will be fully gone into when the Bjuke Report is published and the Government's decision given on it, which, as I have said, I hope will be in a very short time.

A point was raised by Deputy Dillon about the Gaeltacht boat scheme. Boats were allocated to Donegal, Galway, Ring, Cape Clear and Dingle. There were five of these boats allocated in all. The balance of the funds were earmarked for smaller boats. There is very little demand for these smaller boats. There is no longer the same need for the Gaeltacht scheme which was introduced when the hire purchase deposit was 10 per cent. Because of the present 15 per cent. grants and 5 per cent. deposits, the need for the scheme is not the same in view of the new provisions. The few small boats I have referred to have been allocated but there has not been the same demand for them as for the others.

In connection with the marketing of fish that is now dealt with by the Bord Iascaigh Mhara, I should like to put on the records of the House that the figure is now only around 40 per cent. of the total catch marketed.

Mr. Dillon

Is that demersal fish?

Mr. Moran

Yes. Only 40 per cent. of the total fish marketed is now being sold by Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The rest of it is being marketed by other independent auctioneers in the business.

Mr. Dillon

When the Minister says 40 per cent. of the total, does he include pelagic fish?

Mr. Moran

Demersal only. This is again a completely different picture from what it was 15 or 20 years ago. Also, the hire purchasers are now free to send or sell their fish to any authorised auctioneer they like. They are not tied to Bord Iascaigh Mhara as they formerly were. They are free to sell wherever they want to. Evidently, approximately 30 per cent. of them have decided to sell to agencies other than Bord Iascaigh Mhara. That is one of the reasons why I asked Bord Iascaigh Mhara to have another look at this question of marketing in the new development and particularly in the development I envisaged that more and more buyers will be going to the ports of landing and making their arrangements for purchase there, as they are already doing.

It is true to say that we are catching much more fish and marketing more fish, from the figures I have given. Indeed, there has been an extraordinary increase in the percentage over the past couple of years. As far as the fishmeal industry is concerned, there is not, as some Deputies seem to think, an extraordinary market for fishmeal. As a matter of fact, it is a standby generally. The industry use it only during a time of glut. It is only when fish are available through glut at a very low price that the fishmeal side of the industry is an economic proposition. It is necessary to have it there in order to fit in with the glut periods but from information at my disposal there is no such thing as an unending market for fishmeal and certainly for fishmeal at anything in the region of an economic price. The pilot fishmeal plant has been doing its job very well in Killy-begs and serves a very useful purpose when there are these gluts. That is the general position elsewhere, too, except for fish offal which goes as one product to fishmeal factories.

I do not want at this stage to say anything about the three ships about which Deputy Dillon waxed so eloquently, in view of the present situation connected with them. I shall have another opportunity, I hope, to deal with some of the remarks Deputy Dillon made about these three ships and in particular the history of the ships when Deputy Dillon was head of the Department. I shall take another opportunity to deal with that, but in view of certain negotiations at the moment I think I should not say anything else about it.

The matter of the Foyle fisheries was raised again by Deputy Dillon who spoke about conservation measures. Indeed, as far as I know, this is the main concern of the board. It is the policy, as far as I know, to treat applications for licences with equality and fairness. I know there have been some complaints due to the measures that have been taken and I understand some appeals have come to me, and possibly to my opposite number in Belfast, on this matter during the past week. They have been doing their job very successfully and are doing a good job. They have at least one scientist, a biologist, working on the system down there and it is necessary for the board to get certain data on the fish there before considering other methods to be adopted.

I know all fishermen are impatient but I think they have been travelling in the right direction. I am quite sure that it would not be the policy of the board — on which I am represented and on which the Ministry in the North is represented — to give a raw deal to anybody in connection with fishing licences where the fishing was traditional. If there were some individual case which the Deputy thought did not meet up to what I think is the board's policy, I should be glad to get particulars of it for examination by the board.

Deputy Crotty spoke about taking over the "Big Net" which is the pet aversion of all fishermen on the particular river he mentioned but Part V of the 1939 Fisheries Act was never put into force by any Government. Indeed, Deputy Crotty when he was a member of the Government, and a Parliamentary Secretary, took good care that it was not introduced at that time either. I know that fishermen think that this net is doing tremendous damage but the figures of fish caught do not bear out the claim made as to the devastation done by it. At all events, if one started to operate Part V of the 1939 Act, it would not alone be a question of a big net in Kilkenny but a big net all over the country and that is something which up to the present time has not been tried by any Government or Minister in my position.

Deputy Faulkner said he would like to see the home market developed more and indeed that is part of the job we propose to do in regard to the catching, marketing, processing and sale of fish. He made a suggestion about school-books and said there is nothing in them about fish. Indeed, if the school reader is ever changed, I should like to see the Minister for Education including in it a lesson with a moral in it, with the poacher on the receiving end. It would be very useful and it would make the people fish conscious.

He, and another Deputy, mentioned the question of pollution arising from Bord na Móna operations on the Boyne and elsewhere. This question of pollution is a very difficult one. In bog areas, where there are large Bord na Móna operations, it has been giving us trouble for a considerable time and I must say that Bord na Móna have been most co-operative. The fact remains, however, that we have not yet found the answer to this problem.

Recently, I had this matter under consideration and I thought the best people to attack it would be the Salmon Research Trust. We have provided funds for them and a scientist in conjunction with help from Messrs. Arthur Guinness, Son and Company, Limited, and they are to make a scientific study of the matter and try to come up with the answer, if there is an answer, to minimise this pollution which, unfortunately, is a necessary feature of large Bord na Móna operations. I am hopeful that they will find an answer or if not an answer, at least some method of easing the problem.

It is not a problem which is readily answered because I have consulted all the authorities I could find about the matter. The cumulative effect of the silt which is infinitesimal, coming from large scale drainage works into some of these rivers and from large Bord na Móna schemes is to coat over the spawning beds. I know it has a very serious effect on the fishing and in particular on the salmon fishing in these areas. However, I think the best way of going about it is the way I have decided upon: to get the Salmon Research Trust, with the help we have given them, to provide an answer, if, as I say, an answer can be found to the problem.

May I say at this stage to anglers generally that we have had criticism about drainage? Anglers must realise that large national drainage schemes and large Bord na Móna schemes must be carried out. It is my personal aim to ensure that the least possible damage is done to the fisheries, but beyond that, fishermen and sportsmen must realise that large national schemes must go ahead. They must be reasonable about the matter and, above all, they must be patient until we can find a scientific answer to the problem. I can assure fishermen that my Department will do its utmost to take the necessary measures to deal with the problem.

I do not think there are any matters with which I have not dealt. I want to repeat that I am personally convinced the time has come for us to take a completely new look at this whole industry from the catching, to the marketing, to the processing, to the exporting of the fish. The time has come not only to learn about our past mistakes, but to look at this business in its modern setting. The time has also come for us to make up our minds where we are going. We should have an agreed policy to guide us with these new developments for many years to come. It is with that end in view that I am posing certain questions to Bord Iascaigh Mhara and others, not because I do not have my own views as suggested by the Deputy, but because I think it is wise to get advice from people who have been concerned with this business for many years.

When I get the Government decision on the Bjuke report and the F.A.O. report, and when I have a report on some of the problems I have asked Bord Iascaigh Mhara to examine, I hope it will be possible to present a White Paper on this matter which I trust will be a guide as to how we should progress in this great national industry for the future.

Mr. Dillon

Before the Minister finally concludes, does he advert to this aspect of Bord Iascaigh Mhara's functions as a selling organisation? It is the universal experience of cooperative societies in every branch of activity that private interests engaged in similar activities habitually seek to smash the "co-op," in the hope that, with its disappearance, they will be left free to control the industry. That is equally true of the selling of apples, fish or anything else, and even though 40 or 60 per cent of the fish is at present purchased by private interests, that is an added argument for maintaining Bord Iascaigh Mhara as an available sales organisation so as to prevent the possibility of the exploitation of fishermen who might be induced by transitory benefit to allow the Bord Iascaigh Mhara marketing organisation to collapse.

Does the Minister not think that he himself, as Minister, looking at the industry's social implications as well as its economic implications, has a grave duty to use all the influence at his disposal to maintain a marketing organisation in operation?

Mr. Moran

I should like to make it quite clear that Bord Iascaigh Mhara are not a "co-op". They are a marketing organisation and auctioneering is one part of their business. They also supply fish to certain institutions and so on, as part of their business. I am not suggesting, nor have I suggested to Bord Iascaigh Mhara, how these new arrangements should be made. I do not rule out the possibility that private interests, in co-operation with the fishermen, might run the auction side of this business.

All I am asking them to do is to look at the whole business, because I think it is time some one had a look at it to examine the possibilities and report back to me on the matter. Needless to say, I am sure—and if the Deputy does not give me credit for this, he should—there will not be a position whereby what he fears would arise overnight. Neither do I want, at this hour, to argue the niceties as between co-operatives and private interests. I am quite sure that, in considering this matter, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, part of whose business it is at the moment to engage in auctioneering, will be in a better position to advise me than the Deputy or anyone else of any inherent dangers in any change in the marketing system.

Mr. Dillon

Then is it not clear that if such inherent dangers exist, the Minister wants to be warned of them by Bord Iascaigh Mhara?

Mr. Moran

I was not born yesterday.

Motion: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration", by leave, withdrawn.

Vote put and agreed to.