Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 1962

Vol. 196 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Fisheries (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration".—(Deputy O.J. Flanagan).

Mr. Tully

The pollution of rivers is one of the biggest problems the boards of conservators have and while Bord na Móna are blamed as being one of the greatest offenders in this regard, they at least are attempting to undo whatever damage they are causing because they have contributed a considerable sum of money towards the solution of the problem caused by bog silt and they will, I am sure, do anything which is suggested to remedy the situation. However, we have other people causing pollution of the rivers and streams who apparently are not prepared to take any part in preventing the pollution. As a matter of fact, many of them will blatantly deny they are polluting the rivers in any way and even when it is pointed out to them, and when they are asked for their co-operation and when they have, in fact, promised co-operation, it very often turns out that a few days later the same type of material is poured into the river, with consequent danger not alone to fish life but to the nets of the fishermen fishing the stream.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Tully

A number of those concerns have had the fact pointed out to them that they are polluting the rivers and yet they continue to pollute them. I am afraid on that score I must administer a rap over the knuckles to the Fisheries Division which the Parliamentary Secretary represents because when a board of conservators takes an analysis of the water and sends it to the Department, two things happen: one is that the result of the analysis is usually not returned for many months and the other is that, when the result is returned, it is difficult to know how the Division expects ordinary people to be able to interpret the report. I mentioned earlier that the board of which I am a member had to hire a private person to carry out an analysis of the water. The result was that, without any difficulty, we were able to establish that certain firms were polluting the rivers. Another trouble is that even though the water seems to be polluted by a particular firm, there is what the Fisheries Division refers to as a build-up which occurs when four, five or six firms around an industrial town are pouring even a small amount of material or liquid into the river and the combined effect causes death to fish.

It is a pretty difficult problem to solve. I should be very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary if he would indicate whether or not he intends to try to deal with that problem in the new Bill which he is to bring before the House. It is one of the most important problems we have to deal with. From time to time there have been complaints about creameries. Surely in an agricultural country, where we have so many creameries, there should be some solution to the problem of the water used to rinse the cans going into the rivers? Surely it should be possible for somebody to find a way of preventing this from killing fish?

There is another serious matter and I am afraid successive Governments and local authorities do not seem to be very interested in remedying it. It is the question of town sewage. We have, all over the country, towns which have no sewage disposal system except to pump it into the rivers. I can only raise the matter on this Estimate because of the effect it has on fish life. The effect it has is bad. The effect it has on human life when unfortunate people go swimming in the river is too horrifying even to discuss. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to use his power to solve this problem and, when this new Bill is introduced, ensure that some effort will be made to force towns, which show so little regard for public health that they pump untreated sewage into rivers, to do something about the problem.

The question of the length of the season for fishing has been discussed and I was intrigued to hear one Government Deputy suggest that it might be a good idea to close down salmon fishing altogether for a couple of years as a solution towards the problem of what he called the shortage of fish. Either he must not have been very serious about it or he must not be aware that there are people who earn their living on the inland fisheries and people who earn their living by catching and selling salmon. I am not referring to the people who use the rod and line, the angler who usually is somebody on holidays or doing it for sport. I am referring to the people who use nets and boats usually at the estuary of the river or on the tidal portion of the river and who depend entirely for their livelihood on the amount of fish they catch. It would be most unreasonable to suggest that that type of fishing should be closed down. As a matter of fact, there is a strong case for lengthening this season in respect of some of these people.

I have in mind my own constituency in particular and the fishing at the mouth of the Boyne. The fishing there, like everywhere else, must close for the weekend period. That has been the practice for a long time and it is still the practice. I assume it is for the purpose of allowing a number of fish to go through unimpeded. The closing of the salmon fishing over the weekends reduces the season which, in theory, lasts from 14th of February until 14th of August but which, in fact, lasts a very much shorter period because you must take the two weekend days, or the 48 hour period each weekend, out of that. That seriously interferes with the length of time these people are allowed fish.

In Mornington village, there are about 40 families who earn their livelihood from fishing. They are the most independent people I have met in this country. They never ask anything of anybody. They fish for salmon and, when the season finishes, they pick mussels and then, when the season reopens, they fish for salmon again. They do not make a very good livelihood but they do live without any assistance from the State. A few years ago, there was a catastrophe when the mussels were practically all swept away and the Fishery Division came to the people's aid and gave them fairly substantial grants.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary should now consider the whole question of extending the salmon fishing season for net fishermen and, when doing so, take into account that those men depend entirely on what they catch.

Reverting to mussels, because sewage is pumped into the Boyne the mussels caught there are supposed to be unsafe for human consumption without being processed in the proper manner. However, practically everybody there takes mussels and eats them in their raw state and it does not seem to kill anybody. Possibly the people there are immune from whatever effects these mussels would otherwise have. When processed, the mussels can be sold at pretty high prices.

Something extraordinary happens in this respect, because certain firms have been buying them for sale either as bait or for processing at very low prices—anything from 8s. to 12s. per cwt. I do not know what these firms realise on the mussels they sell for bait, but I know that in any English city you can buy the processed mussels from Mornington in jars at anything from 3s. per dozen mussels. It does not make sense that the people of Mornington, who have gone to all the trouble of picking and bagging the mussels and of having them marketed, should have to sell them at a fraction of a penny per dozen.

Some years ago, there was great agitation, in which my predecessor and later myself were involved, with the Department in an attempt to have a purification tank for mussels put up in that area, and while at one time hope was held out, it came to pass eventually that it was knocked on the head and the purification tank was never put up. Since that time, a number of local people have got together and quite recently they attempted to have a small industry established for the processing of mussels. Two of them started in a small way, but then, because of lack of capital and other factors, they were unable to continue.

I understand the Parliamentary Secretary recently received a deputation introduced by somebody who did not know the first thing about it but who apparently wished to make an impression. The Parliamentary Secretary, obviously knowing the facts were not being presented to him in a sensible way, did not give much heed to the deputation, the members of which went away very dissatisfied. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary, being a reasonable man, and who, unlike other Parliamentary Secretaries, paid visits to Drogheda and attended meetings of the Fishery Board to hear their arguments, will be prepared to receive a responsible deputation from Mornington who will put to him the facts of the mussel industry. Having heard them, he will, I believe, give every assistance possible to ensure that these people get the price to which they are entitled for their mussels. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would indicate, either in reply to this Estimate or to me personally, whether he is prepared to agree to that suggestion.

Before I leave the question of salmon fishing, I should like to emphasise that the levy still being collected is something of a burden and should be wiped out because people are getting it hard enough to live on salmon fishing without having to pay a levy. The Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to get his Department to forget about the levy. The man who gets only one fish in a week looks very sadly at this levy. There is no doubt that salmon fishing on practically every river, but particularly the Boyne, has been affected very much by foreign trawlers. In this connection we had a statement made by a Deputy when we last discussed this Estimate which was absolutely ridiculous. It was too ridiculous to bother about really, if it were not for the fact that it got widespread publicity.

The statement was made by somebody who should have known the charge he was making was not alone wrong but completely and utterly impossible. Anybody who lives inland might possibly imagine a boat pulling up to a lighthouse, the crew getting on to the lighthouse, leaving bottles of brandy as bribes and getting back into their boat, but anybody who lives near the sea knows that it is impossible. This was a definite charge made against certain people. In this evening's Evening Mail the matter received more publicity. Under the heading “Spy-Brandy—T.D.'s Charge,” the newspaper says this Deputy declared that lighthouse keepers accept brandy bribes from masters of foreign trawlers. It also says that the Deputy alleges a letter posted to him from Dáil Éireann had been opened and that it arrived to him five days late. He also said that he would demand an investigation to find out who had opened the letter. His charge was that lighthouse keepers were being given bottles of brandy for the purpose of having messages flashed to foreign trawlers in order to assist them in stealing salmon within Irish coastal waters. Unless he is prepared to have that charge investigated, he should be asked by the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw it. A suggestion of that kind should not be allowed to pass by this House.

Undoubtedly, there are some foreign trawlers coming inshore. Up to a few years ago they had extreme difficulty in doing this because of the type of net they were then using, but now they can use a nylon net, leave it and come back again and, occasionally, get away with it. Sometimes it is wrecked by a vessel going in or out. In connection with this kind of illegal salmon fishing, I should like to point out that a few years ago an official of the Fisheries Division did a very good job in preparing a history of fish life with particular reference to salmon—their period of spawning, their habits when they went up river and the pattern the salmon took through the sea.

It was shown very clearly that salmon usually follow a set pattern. It could not be possible that this history would not have fallen into the hands of other people and that, as a result of a very fine piece of work by an official of the Fishery Division, people over the past year or so have found it possible to know where and when the fish are coming in and how to collect them outside our waters. I am not casting any slur on the official who produced this document but merely saying that someone is always able to turn things like that into good account for himself. These are the stories we hear about the shortage of salmon in our waters. We are told the number of salmon is dwindling. I do not see why not if it is possible to get salmon on their way in to our rivers, if the people who take them do not have to come near our rivers at all. I know the counterpart in Scotland of the Fisheries Division have taken the necessary steps to prevent that sort of thing happening. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to include in the new legislation measures to ensure it cannot be carried on here.

I would point out one instance. On one day, when a foreign trawler had broken down off the Meath-Louth coast, during those 24 hours the local fishermen caught more salmon than they had in the previous months. That was surely more than a coincidence. It was at least evidence to them that the salmon are not allowed come into the river and that the salmon the local fishermen get are the odd ones which slip through.

We hear a lot about the corvettes in relation to this matter of fishery protection. I was very interested to hear the Minister for Defence say there is another ten years' left in them. If they are to be our only defence for the next ten years, then the lighthouse men will get very little brandy. It will not be necessary to give it to them because by the time the corvette gets there, the foreign trawlers will be able to limp away without having to get any warning.

Would it be possible even at this stage to consider the purchase of one or two helicopters? They could be used for many purposes, including sea rescue. Surely the question of cost, which has been mentioned here, should not prevent the Department in this day and age from purchasing what is an absolute necessity? Two helicopters would be able to do more than a dozen corvettes. If that is not possible, would the Department consider buying a number of smaller boats, which could be spread around the coast, and training the sons of fishermen who would be prepared to man them? If that were done there might be some hope of giving some protection to the fisheries. But if it cannot be done, then we might as well say here and now that we can offer no protection and that the foreign trawlers can come in here and take any fish they want.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Tully

I referred the other day to the question of fishing rights in the country. It is a fact that fishing rights have been retained by landlords on lands taken from them by the Land Commission. Subsequently, the Land Commission made a new scheme and held on to the fishing rights when they divided land. Certain people then got possession of these rights who were as alien to the local people, though they might be Irish-born, as the people who held them originally. If somebody gets land they should also get the fishing and game rights attaching to it. It seems ridiculous that the owners of land have not the right to fish or shoot game on the land.

The biggest snag is that there are many rivers on which the local people are not allowed to fish. While the law lays down that the owners of fisheries are entitled to restrict the use of those fisheries to themselves and to those to whom they give permission to fish, at the same time some system should be devised whereby people in the local towns and villages would be able to have a certain amount of fishing. Apart altogether from catching fish, fishing provides relaxation and brings people out into the fresh air. It is, therefore, something that should be encouraged. Children particularly should be encouraged to fish and every facility should be given to them.

Recently some of our canals have been closed and drained of hundreds of fish. An effort should be made to preserve them in order to provide free fishing for people unable to fish in the other places. Our small lakes should also, as far as possible, be made available for fishing. Some of the lakes have coarse fish only and others are so situated that it is almost impossible to gain access to them. Deserved tribute was paid to the Inland Fisheries Trust here last week but I believe in some cases they are not doing exactly what they set out to do. I am referring particularly to a lake in Monaghan known locally as the Emmy Lake. The Inland Fisheries Trust cleaned that lake and put a lot of trout into it, but for the past two years, they have not gone near it. About a fortnight ago, there was a "trial shot", as the local people call it, with the net across the lake and not one trout was taken. That proves that, because the Trust did not continue the good work they began, the lake is back in the position it was a few years ago and there is nothing in it now except coarse fish. That should not be allowed to continue and every effort should be made, once a lake is cleared and stocked, to keep it that way.

The only other matter I would refer to is the question of the fishery protection staff. I understand the Department have under consideration the whole question of fishery protection. Some time ago they suggested they would like to see an improvement in the protection service. The Board in Drogheda recently decided the wages they were paying their employees were too low. They were based on the agricultural wages. While the agricultural worker is required to work 50 hours a week, it can be shown that the fishery protection staff are required to work up to 12 hours per day or night seven days a week. It was decided something would have to be done about it. It was estimated that in order to pay them properly, it would be necessary to give them a wage of something around £10 per week. Knowing that the amount of money available out of which they were to be paid was pretty small, and not seeking to put a big burden on the Department, they compromised by agreeing to a rate of £7 per week, a rate which, in my opinion, was very low.

The Parliamentary Secretary was present at the meeting at which this decision was taken, as was one of his officials. To be fair to the Parliamentary Secretary, he did not take any part in the discussions because, as he said, the matter would subsequently come before him. We understood that following discussions with the Board which had suggested that fair wage, it would be considered in the same way by the Department, and we were horrified to find that the Department did not sanction that rate but, in fact, reduced it by 10/- per week. There was no justification for that. I ask the Department not to continue that practice and to see that the fishery protection staff are adequately remunerated.

The questions of giving them uniforms, protective clothing and proper time off must also be taken into consideration. I know quite well that the Parliamentary Secretary can say it is a matter for the boards of fishery conservators whether or not they get proper time off, days off or weeks off, or whatever they get. I do not think that is the way it should be done. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary should see to it that uniforms are supplied, and also that arrangements are made to ensure that those people get what they are entitled to by law. They should not be required to work more than a 48-hour week and if they work more than 48 hours in a week, they should be paid overtime.

They should be allowed at least one day off per week. I do not know whether the House is aware that these people are required to work Sunday and Monday, bank holiday and Church holiday and, until very recently, 365 days in the year. The law does not allow that now, but some boards still continue that practice. They are entitled to 21 days holiday and they should get those holidays. The Parliamentary Secretary should issue a regulation to each board of conservators telling them that their employees, under the present law, cannot be made to work seven days of the week. That is what they are doing at present.

I shall finish as I started by saying that the Parliamentary Secretary has proved, so far as I know, to be a very reasonable man. He has made great efforts to try to help fishing in many ways. Possibly his approach may not be the approach we would all desire, but I know he intends to do the right thing. I hope he will take the advice I have given him this evening as being intended to help him in his job.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

This is a very important Estimate indeed. We are an island country, with the sea around our 32 Counties. In the 26 Counties over which we have jurisdiction, the fishing industry is, in my opinion, second to agriculture. Yet, when we examine the facts, we find that it is one of the most neglected industries in the entire State. This year, the Estimate amounts to approximately £380,000 and the total catch of fish last year was worth £1,357,000.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. P. O'Donnell

In other words, last year the worth of the total catch of fish exceeded this year's Estimate by £1,000,000. We have to spend £380,000 to get a profit of £1,000,000 from fish. It is a most peculiar thing that out of that £1,357,000 worth of fish, we exported £744,000, but as against that, we imported £600,000 worth last year. That information has been procured by me in reply to a question. The actual figure is that £596,536 worth of fish was imported into the State last year. There is something wrong there when we have to import practically as much fish as we export. I fear we must lay the blame on Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Lenihan

That is an original statement.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I shall try to prove it. Up to about 1932, the fishing industry was one of the most prosperous in the country and our biggest catch was herring. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary knows very much about herring, but in winter time we had four or five different types of herring, large full herring, full herring, turnbellies, smalls and spents.

Major de Valera

Did they not sheer off?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I shall tell you what sheered off. We had this very valuable industry and we had fishcurers from all over the British Isles coming here, buying the fish, curing and processing it here, putting it into barrels and exporting it to Hamburg. Irish herring held the Hamburg market when herring from no other country could compete.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. P. O'Donnell

This prosperous industry continued up to 1934 and in that year the Fianna Fáil Government introduced the Control of Manufactures Act, under which no firm could set up in business here, unless it had 51 per cent. Irish capital. All the herring curers, the Jenkins and the Leslies, all the big Scottish and English curers were driven out by that Act of 1934, with the result that there has been a slump in the herring industry ever since. I have seen thousands of pounds worth of herring dumped over the pier because there was no buyer for them.

The Government of the day saw their blunder and instead of issuing licences to those firms to come back here and process the herrings, they set up An Bord Iascaigh Mhara or the Irish Sea Fisheries Association, as it was then known, and put them into the market to purchase and cure herring. This body was staffed by civil servants who knew nothing about the industry. If the Parliamentary Secretary looks up his files and sees the hundreds of thousands of pounds lost by the Sea Fisheries Association, it will open his eyes. These people were supposed to buy herring when there was a glut and process them. How many times have they done it and then dumped them, and not only the cured herring but the salt and the barrels also? I have seen them lying rotting at the backs of sheds. They were trying to compete against men who knew the business from A to Z. That is what depressed the herring industry, one of the things that ruined the trade, until the war years.

For many years, we have been preaching that there is only one method by which we could revive the herring industry, that is, by inviting back the gentlemen with the knowhow and permitting them to operate here. Competition is good for trade and this would raise the price of fish to fishermen.

In 1948, when the first inter-Party Government came into power, they issued licences to these English firms to come back and endeavour to revive the herring industry. They brought back Marinco and various other curers from England and Scotland, with the result that from 1948 on the fishing industry was being restored to the position it held before the Control of Manufactures Act of 1934.

Let me explain the type of fishing we had in this country prior to that Act. I do not want to be controversial but I think we will all agree, that while there was a big fishing industry in Waterford and Wexford, we had herring off the Donegal coast for practically eight months of the year. We started in the month of May with matje herring, probably the best fish of the species. We had large full herring, harvest herring, right up to the beginning of October and from early November up to St. Patrick's Day, we had winter herring.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I have cited the various classes of herring caught off our coast, but because of the Control of Manufactures Act, the fishing for matje herring was completely stopped because a different type of net, the large-mesh net was necessary for it. Very few Irish boats were engaged in it. It was done mostly by Scottish and English steam drifters and they were refused permission to land their catches here. That finished matje herring fishing and it has never been revived from that day and instead of the selection of herring that I mentioned, no selection was made but the surplus was dumped, whether good or bad, and the industry was completely depressed.

I have told of our attempts to revive it in 1948. We found in that year when we came into office that one of our boatyards at Meevagh had just been closed by the Fianna Fáil Minister. We found the policy of inshore fishing had been completely abandoned and a new policy established by Fianna Fáil. The Fianna Fáil Minister said: "We will engage in deep water fishing. We will buy deepsea trawlers and three or four of them will supply the country. That is all that is required." To implement his policy, he purchased the three famous second-hand German trawlers at a cost of about £160,000 and abandoned inshore fisheries completely. We pointed out that by doing this, he would ruin the fishing industry.

Fortunately, when the inter-Party Government came to power, the first thing they did was to reopen Meevagh boatyard and begin a building programme of seine-net fishing boats, mid-water boats, and they endeavoured to encourage fishermen to go back to their traditional industry. We had to go further. If there are lacuna periods in the industry, people are not encouraged to eat fish. We saw that if there was a stormy week, fortnight or month, the fish merchant could not guarantee continuity of supplies and that it was necessary to build up supplies. To do that, deep freeze was essential. Deputy Dillon, the Minister of the day, had Bord Iascaigh Mhara erect at Killybegs a pilot deep freeze plant. If it was a success, then, that would be passed on to any private enterprise that wished to instal deep freeze plants. The intention was that frigidaire vans should circulate throughout rural Ireland and deliver fresh fish daily or at least twice or three times a week. Deputy Dillon insisted on the purchase of those frigidaire vans. The deep freeze plant was erected at Killybegs.

In addition to that, we saw that the cost of transport made fish uneconomic to the housewife. We saw that if the offal of the fish, the bone, could be used for, say, fishmeal, the fillets only need be transported and the fisherman would still get the same price and the housewife would not pay for the inedible part of the fish. Therefore, we established at Killybegs a pilot fishmeal plant. Again, there was a change of Government and not one of those frigidare vans purchased by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara was ever put on the road. They were allowed to lie in the yard of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara until such time as they had to be sold at approximately 50 per cent, of what they cost.

That is why year after year Bord Iascaigh Mhara have lost money. They have no experience whatsoever in the fishing industry. Their staff had no experience. They were mere civil servants. They were excellent in their own job—excellent. I am not making any charge against them there. But, they were inexperienced and that is what is wrong with Bord Iascaigh Mhara, and it is still going on.

Only two weeks ago, the fishermen of Tory Island caught 12 cran of matje herring. Bord Iascaigh Mhara bought them sight unseen. Matje herring are a very fat fish. They have to be attended to immediately. They take a very light cure of salt. Having bought them, they found they had no salt and had to hunt around the entire north-west of Donegal looking for 10 cwt. of salt to salt these 12 cran of matje herring. By the time they got it, of course, the herring were gone, the weather was so good; you could not possibly cure them. I should like to know what has happened to them since. If Bord Iascaigh Mhara were proper business people, surely they would have a supply of salt in anticipation of such a catch?

I was anxious to see this prosperous fishing, matje herring fishing, revived. I have asked the Minister several times here about the Cú Feasa. In case the House does not know it, Sir, the Cú Feasa is a vessel built, not in this country, but in Holland, on the direction of the Minister, to explore Irish fishing waters. I have asked him when was this boat going to Donegal to search for matje herring and I got the reply to my question that she had gone on 25th May, when the matje herring season was over. Where had she gone?—to Killybegs.

Any person who knows anything about the herring industry knows that matje herring are caught somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 to 12 miles off the coast. They know that it requires a herring net with a 29-row mesh and we know there is no such herring net in this country at the moment. We are aware that some short time ago the Scotch herring curers association did offer for sale 29-row herring nets. We are further aware that the Minister's Department was informed and the advertisement was sent to him. He was advised to purchase these nets and to distribute them to the fishermen in the hope that this prosperous industry might be revived. They did not purchase them but they sent a boat up to search for the fish in a place where matje herring have never been seen and where no boat could possibly fish them. They are difficult to fish. They are a surface fish. They live on plankton. Plankton is got only in certain parts of the sea and where they have been searching for them is a place known to fishermen as the jungle, north-west of the Stags of Broadhill. That is where they have been searching for them, simply because a few cran were picked up in a seine or drift net and that is where the Cú Feasa has spent her time. We have never seen her in the traditional herring ground as yet. Of course, it is now too late.

The Parliamentary Secretary was in Donegal with his Minister quite recently. I do not know what he was doing unless visiting Fianna Fáil cumainn. I thought he would at least have met the fishermen, the people interested in the industry.

Mr. Lenihan

I did, actually.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Where?

Mr. Lenihan

Killybegs.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

In Killybegs, not in Burtonport, Bunbeg, Downings——

Mr. Lenihan

I did.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

With the members of the Fianna Fáil cumann only.

Mr. Lenihan

That is nonsense.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I have talked to the fishermen of Killybegs. I know the gentlemen you saw. You saw a few men there all right. You did not see a solitary fisherman in Burtonport or Kincasslagh.

Mr. Lenihan

I did, actually.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Give me the name of one.

Mr. Lenihan

I will get the names for you.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It would be very interesting to know it. These men look forward with interest to the visit of a Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary for the purpose of hearing their grievances and possibly putting before them suggestions for the benefit of their industry.

Mr. Lenihan

I got very useful suggestions.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I hope you put them in practice—but you got none in Burtonport. You did not see a fisherman there.

Mr. Lenihan

I did—Burtonport, Killybegs and Kincasslagh.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Certainly the fishermen with whom I spoke have not seen you and I will be very interested if the Parliamentary Secretary does give me the names of the fishermen he met when he visited Burtonport.

Mr. Lenihan

The Deputy had better get further acquainted with his constituents.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I am well acquainted with them and I am well aware of the men you met and where you met them in Killybegs. There is no mid-day closing there, so we will say nothing.

Mr. Meaney

This is not the Liquor Bill.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

If the Deputy will confine his activity to the milch cow and leave the fishing to me, we will get on much better. In his Estimate this year, the Minister refers to the fish which are most common. He tells us that one of the fish most commonly landed during the year was whiting. He says there was little change in landings of demersal or white fish, the most important varieties in order of value being whiting, etc. At the same time as he tells us that whiting is the most important and valuable class of fish landed, his colleague, the Minister for Defence, is advertising for fish for the diet of the Army but one of the classes of fish struck off the tender was whiting. Whiting of any description will not be received by the Minister for Defence for the Army. What happens? The Minister seeks another class of fish which is not procurable and a licence is issued to some person or other to import and sell it to the Army. Is that the type of co-operation and co-ordination one would expect from a Minister?

I quote from the Minister's statement as published at column 177, Volume 196 of the Official Report of 13th June of this year:

There was little change in landing of demersal or white fish, the most important varieties in order of value being whiting...

The most important being the very fish the Army will not eat.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.