Committee on Finance. - Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1962— Money Resolution.

I move:

That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to amend the law relating to fisheries and for that purpose to amend and extend the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, and certain other enactments.

I want to query the whole basis on which money is now to be spent under the Fisheries legislation which is covered by this Bill and its amendment of the previous legislation. I have heard repeated references in this House, no later than today, to the proposed sale by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara of certain installations at Schull, Galway and Killybegs. I want to make it perfectly clear that when I was Minister in charge of Fisheries, with Deputy O.J. Flanagan as my Parliamentary Secretary at the time, the Schull ice plant was installed.

If I were Minister for Fisheries again tomorrow, I would do exactly the same thing.

One of the great difficulties in facilitating the small fishermen on our coasts has been that, where the capacity to land fish shows a tendency to expand, the absence of ice facilities has very frequently aborted such an expansion at its initiation. It is perfectly true that a cautious, conservative Minister in charge of Fisheries, if his attitude is that the first and primary consideration must be commercial success, would say to any group of fishermen on our coast: "If you cannot pay for it, do without it." I never took that view and I do not take it now.

I do not subscribe to the view that the small fishermen on our coasts should be made the bond slaves of the wholesale fish merchants of this country. I always took the view that the wholesale fish merchants were the servants of the fishermen. Now we are being brought around to the position that the fishermen are being converted into the servants of the wholesale fishmongers. I believed it was the function and duty of the Minister to provide facilities for fishermen where they wanted them—and one of the essential requirements they wanted was ice.

I remember the occasion of the installation of the facilities that are now to be sold at Schull. There was a boatyard in Baltimore. Our predecessors in office had apparently made up their minds to let that boatyard close down. I myself went down to Baltimore after consultation with Deputy O.J. Flanagan and personally inspected it. The boatyard was operated by a quasiindustrial school, administered by the diocesan clergy of the Diocese of Ross.

I entered into negotiation with the Bishop of Ross to sell to the Fisheries Branch that part of the premises which included the boatyard and in that I was facilitated in every way by the ecclesiastical authorities. I re-opened the boatyard because I believed it was a desirable means of providing more employment and as a training ground for young fishermen. I think I was right; I would do it again if I had to. I did the same thing at Fanad Bay in County Donegal. In association with that, we were building boats in Baltimore. We hoped that the existing landings of fish at Schull would expand. We were approached by the local clergy and by a number of representative persons in that area who assured us that the existing landings showed a tendency to expand but that their prospective expansion was gravely prejudiced by the fact that ice was not available.

I directed that supplies of ice be made available at Schull, as we did at several other centres around the coast —at Baltimore, Ballycotton and Galway. I want to ask the House: are we to lay down the proposition now that the Fisheries Branch are to provide no facilities for the fishermen, unless and until it can be demonstrated that there will be a permanent profit in the operating of those facilities? If that is the line, then you may hand the whole business over to the wholesale fishmongers and they will do it a damn sight better than the Department can do it for them. They will simply go down to the fishermen and tell them: "You boys are too well off. If you want the profit necessary to provide the facilities in this area, you must sell your fish cheaper to us at our price and when we have made enough profit out of it, if we think you are worth keeping in existence, we will spend part of the profits in providing you with the facilities without which you cannot survive".

If that is to be the new policy of the Fisheries Branch, let us hear it. It was not our policy, and I will not for one moment sit here in silence and let some—I could use strong language here—of the new authorities on fisheries get up and tell me that the ice plant at Schull was one of Flanagan's white elephants. If it is anyone's white elephant, it is Dillon's. I want to make it clear that I put it there for the fishermen and that I did not put it there for the benefit of the wholesale fishmongers. I ran the Fisheries Branch for the fishermen; I did not run it for the wholesale fishmongers.

I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but this is a very limited debate, and the only matter which comes for discussion is the money required for the purposes of the Bill.

This Bill amends practically every section of the Principal Act.

The only matter that falls for discussion is the money to pay for what the Bill proposes.

Yes, Sir, but this Bill amends practically every section of the Principal Act and I suggest it provides the finance for the administration of a very large part of the Act. My case is that under this Bill, and the policy enunciated by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, the fisheries of this country are hereafter to be run for the wholesale fishmongers. I say they ought to be run for the fishermen. Part of the propaganda is that some of the facilities we provide, such as the ice plant at Schull, are now to be sold. I do not know to whom. The object is to point out——

The ice plant at Schull is not being sold.

Is this a point of order? If it is, would the Minister make his point of order and sit down?

The point of order is——

Is it a point of order at all?

It is, if the Deputy has the common decency to wait and listen. He will not get away with that kind of bluff with me. On a point of order, the ice plant in Schull is not for sale and the Deputy is completely out of order in suggesting that it is.

Is this a point of order?

Of course, it is a point of order and the Deputy is being completely irrelevant.

I want to submit to this House that the whole trend now is that the fisheries of this country are to be run for the benefit of the wholesale fishmongers. I want to reiterate that, when providing these facilities, we did so deliberately and will do the same again tomorrow when the responsibility for the Fisheries Branch returns to us. Let everybody know that is what our policy will be and let there be no misapprehension hereafter that we sought to get power on any misapprehension. That is our policy—to run the fisheries for the fishermen, not for the wholesale fishmongers.

It has also been suggested that the Minister for Industry and Commerce —I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary had the indecency to second him—referred to the Galway installations as white elephants. If they are white elephants, they are Dillon's white elephants. I put them there deliberately and for the purpose of reviving the fishing industry on the Connemara coast. Was that right or was that wrong? The situation was that there was a splendid fishing tradition on the Connemara coast. It threatened to die out. We provided boats for the Connemara fishermen and our best technical advice was also provided.

This Money Resolution seeks money to pay for what this Bill proposes and the Deputy is now referring to something which was done in Galway.

I am referring to the announced intention to sell the plant in Galway which I put there. I want to demonstrate to the House the purpose for which that plant was put there. From the technical advice we had, there was no doubt left in our minds that it was no use providing fishing facilities in Galway, if we did not provide supplies of ice, because the more fish you bring into Galway, the more the fishermen are in the hands of the wholesale fishmongers. I provided the ice and I provided boats but it is true that since we went out of office, for reasons I do not fully understand but which may be explicable, the development of fisheries in Connemara has not gone ahead.

Because the Deputy scattered the boats all over the coast.

That is the Minister's explanation of it.

That is the fact.

We operated the Gaeltacht Boat Scheme and even the Minister will agree with me that if there was to be a revival of fishing on the Connemara coast, the provision of ice in Galway was a sine qua non. Very well; we provided the ice. I admit the fishing potential of Connemara has not developed. The Minister says to me now the reason for its failure was that seven years ago we were supposed to have scattered the boats all over the coast of Ireland. He has had seven years to put that right and his remedy for the situation which he says we created is not to bring back the boats to Connemara but to sell the ice plant. Is that not a nice contribution?

That is not so. The ice plant is not being sold.

He says fishing did not revive in Connemara because I scattered the boats. That was seven years ago. He has had seven years. He agrees with me there cannot be fishing in Connemara, if there is not ice in Galway, but in the next breath, he says he is about to sell the ice plant in Galway so that the Connemara fishermen may now depend on whatever facilities the wholesale fishmongers will provide for them. We do not agree with that policy. We want to make the fishermen independent of the wholesale fishmongers and therefore we not only want to provide the facilities of ice and the disposition of surplus fish stocks, but we also say that it would be useful to give them their own sales machinery which would help to sell fish in the interests of the fishermen and not in the interests of the wholesale fishmongers.

I heard a whole hullabaloo raised about the sale of the plant in Killybegs. I put the plant in Killybegs. I put the pilot fishmeal plant in Killybegs, and I would do the same again tomorrow. The fact is that it was that pilot fishmeal plant in Killybegs which was the source of the fishmeal factory which is now working in Killybegs.

And working well.

If we had not put that pilot fishmeal plant in Killybegs, they would not now have that factory.

Fiddle-faddle. The factory is a major project——

——which would never have been there. I put the pilot fishmeal plant there, which provides the evidence——

The pilot plant had nothing to do with it.

Nonsense. Was it not there when the whole thing started? We proceeded to build the factory which is at present in Killybegs. We started building it and when we were building it—is that not right?—a group of Germans approached the Department—Mr. Gallagher was the principal officer then—to know if they would be allowed to take over on a commercial basis what we had planned as a Government enterprise.

How is that relevant to the Money Resolution?

It is relevant to the purpose for which money is being provided by this amending Bill. I say that the policy at present operated by the Department——

Surely it is relevant in view of what has been said. It is now ten minutes past 4 o'clock.

I beg the Deputy's pardon?

I am saying that if what was said for the past 20 minutes was relevant, what the Deputy is saying now is relevant.

I do not think either is relevant.

Twenty minutes have gone by.

I am making the case that the policy for which money is being raised by this Money Resolution —and surely this is the time to raise this matter—is wholly ill-conceived.

It is a fact that the Money Resolution provides the money, but what the Deputy is telling us is history.

I am comparing what was done with what is proposed to be done——

Under this Bill?

Under this Money Resolution.

Related to this Bill?

Related to the Fisheries Acts.

This Money Resolution is to provide the facilities to carry out the work which it is proposed to do under this Bill——

Which involves——

The Deputy is going over the whole history of the past seven years of fisheries.

May I direct the attention of the Chair to the fact that this Bill amends Section 3 of the Principal Act, Section 9 of the Principal Act, Section 27 of the Principal Act, Section 33 of the Principal Act, Section 49 of the Principal Act, and gives an extension of powers of court under Sections 78 and 90 of the Principal Act.

Of the Sea Fisheries Acts?

All those refer to provisions of the Principal Act which covers sea fisheries and inland fisheries.

The Parliamentary Secretary should not try any smart talk on me. I have been too long at this type of thing. I am dealing now with general fisheries policy and I suggest that this Money Resolution——

Fisheries policy as adumbrated in the amending Bill.

Relating to inland fisheries.

It is a Bill amending the fisheries code. It is "an Act to amend the law relating to fisheries and for that purpose to amend and extend the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, and certain other enactments". Does the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act apply only to inland fisheries?

Go fish.

The Sea Fisheries Acts relate to what the Deputy is talking about.

Go fish. I want to establish this proposition, that our view certainly is that the fisheries of this country should be operated for the benefit of the fishermen, and not for the benefit of the wholesale fishmongers, and that the sooner that change is wrought, the better it will be for the fisheries of the country and for society as a whole. I intend to return to that theme repeatedly until such time as I get an opportunity of appointing a Minister to see that the interests of the fishermen are put before those of the wholesale fishmongers, and I want to tell the wholesale fishmongers that contributions to the Fine Gael Party funds will not alter that policy decision.

The Minister protests that there is no reference here to any sea fisheries matters. I do not know whether he is now prepared to accept the view that oysters are a category of sea fish. I see that the section amending Section 3 of the Principal Act deals with a definition of "deleterious matter".

There is a big difference between oysters and cod.

I would not expect the Minister to know.

The Deputy, being an expert on cod, should know.

Foul abuse from the Minister rolls off me like water off a duck's back. If he imagines that by battering ram methods from Ballina, he can——

The Deputy has the mud of the local oysters on him and he brings it into the House.

The Minister should have some manners.

It was not from the wind he got it.

God knows where the Deputy got it.

(Interruptions.)

I want to know if the provision dealing with deleterious matters covers the issue of deleterious matter in the estuaries and the landlocked lakes of the country. I suppose it does.

The Deputy will not get an answer now.

Would that not come under the Bill itself?

What does the Deputy want to know?

The Deputy should address his remarks to the Ceann Comhairle.

I want to know if the amendment dealing with deleterious matter covers contamination of the estuarine waters as well as the rivers. I imagine it does.

As they flow in, yes.

Money is to be provided for the control of that matter by the section amending Section 3 of the Principal Act. I should be glad if the Minister would give us some information on another matter to which I have directed attention before, that is, the fate of the attempted rehabilitation of the oyster beds undertaken by the Department. It was announced in the papers that there is a proposal from some foreign company seeking facilities to establish oyster beds in Cork. Has any progress been made?

When we come to the discussion on Section 3, we can deal with that matter.

I am giving the Minister notice that I intend to raise it. I should be glad to know why it should be possible for a foreign company to undertake in our waters that which I think the Department should be eminently qualified to undertake itself. Subject to those general reservations, we do not propose to oppose the Money Resolution.

The Minister rose.

On a point of information, is the Minister necessarily concluding?

Not necessarily concluding.

He need not be the last speaker?

I want first——

It is clear that the Minister is not concluding?

No, not concluding.

As I understand it, the Money Resolution must be moved before we can take the Committee Stage of the Bill.

If anyone else offers, he will be accepted?

If anyone else offers, he will be accepted?

I want to dispose categorically of the typical red herring which has been dragged in by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the whole fisheries policy. It is untrue to say that the ice plants are to be closed down and got rid of. In fact, Deputies will be aware that it is the intention to provide ice in other places where it is necessary for the development of the fishing industry.

Deputy Dillon suggests that these processing factories are being closed down. The position was made quite clear in the White Paper to which my Parliamentary Secretary referred as to what was the policy in this connection. The White Paper on the industry set out at paragraph 18:

Where factories are held or provided by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, efforts will be made to induce private or co-operative interests to lease or purchase them. The fishmeal factory at Killybegs was leased to a Danish firm shortly after its acquisition by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in 1961 and offers have been invited for a letting of the fish processing factory at Schull, County Cork.

The fact is that there was a processing or freezing plant established at Schull by Deputy Dillon or by Deputy Flanagan, whichever of them did so, and that outfit has not worked since. It is the policy of this Government to see, where possible, that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara will lease or sell these processing units so as to get them working in the same way as we have got the Danish firm to get that factory working, and working successfully, in Donegal.

We are not prepared to leave these factories idle. Considering that these plants are up for sale or leasing, I do not think I should say anything further about their past history but it is my sincere wish, and I am sure the sincere wish of the House, that co-operatives or people concerned in the business, no matter who they are or from what country they come, will be interested in these processing factories that are now for sale or leasing, and that we shall have the same activity as is now provided under the same policy in Donegal in the factory to which I have referred.

It is no use having these factories there idle; it is no use having these factories there serving no purpose. If people who are expert in this business are prepared to operate them on a commercial basis and thus provide a market for the fishermen who land their fish, then I think we should all rejoice. It is a complete absurdity to suggest that we expect the fishermen to take a cheaper price for their fish, and in some way to enrich the merchants. In fact, no Government since the foundation of this State have gone as far to provide inducements for the resurrection of the Irish fishing industry as this Government have under this White Paper.

There were never such inducements given for the provision of new boats. There were never such inducements given for the training of young fishermen. There was never such an attempt made on a broad national scale to provide for the reorganisation of this industry, for the marketing, export and processing of fish and to deal with every other aspect and development of this industry. I will not allow the Leader of the Opposition to get away with this red herring, that this new policy is designed for the purpose of enriching those involved in the commercial side of the industry.

Deputy Dillon has mentioned Galway. I want Deputies to throw their minds back to a few years ago when the Coalition were in power and when he put the plant in Galway. What happened? Under his Department, there were supposed to be eight boats given to Connemara fishermen in order to ensure a continuity of supply for that factory in Galway. The result was that with Deputy O'Donnell in Donegal pulling this coat tail and Deputy Somebody-else in Kerry pulling the other coat tail, all these boats were scattered around the whole coast and the poor Connemara fishermen, who were waiting for these boats in order to provide the fish for this factory, had to take to the emigrant ship.

That is the reason why Galway failed. Under this new policy, I can assure the House we are now providing ways and means for the boats to be given under most favourable terms to our own fishermen in order to supply places like Galway. If we are successful in getting a sound commercial undertaking to take over Galway and run it as the Danes are running the one in Donegal, then there will be more employment and there will be a new life for the fishermen on the west coast of Ireland.

I do not know the reason for all the sound and fury.

Deputy Dillon was very touchy.

I do not care who was touchy. The Minister seems to be the touchiest person in the House. However, he talks about all the inducements given to encourage fisheries in recent years. If there are all these inducements, there must be a failure because last year the Parliamentary Secretary, if I remember correctly—again I speak from memory—indicated to us in his speech on the Estimate for Fisheries that there were fewer employed in the fishing industry last year than there were the year before.

It is not my purpose in this debate to make a speech such as one would make on the Estimate for Fisheries. I feel it necessary to refute the allegation of the Minister for Lands that there are many more employed in the fishing industry at present and that it is a booming industry. It is nothing of the sort. I do not want to apportion blame either to Deputy Flanagan or to Deputy Lenihan for the failure to attract more men into this industry. As far as these three factories are concerned, I merely repeat the warning I gave to the Parliamentary Secretary at Question Time today. I should hate to see these three factories—and I trust the Parliamentary Secretary when he says to me that these will not be disposed of at a give-away price——

The Deputy can have that assurance.

The Parliamentary Secretary has given that assurance and I am prepared to accept it, but I qualify these remarks by saying I am not satisfied that we should fall over ourselves in inducing Danes, Germans, British or Americans to take over these factories that have been established by Irish Governments. This may be the thin end of the wedge which the Minister for Finance appeared to be wielding some time last year when he suggested that many of our State or semi-State companies should be given over to private enterprise. I agree with the principle that underlies what Deputy Dillon, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, has put forward when he inferred that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara or some State or semi-State concern would have much more regard for the interests of the ordinary fisherman than would private enterprise.

If the advancement of the fishing industry were left absolutely to private enterprise, I do not believe there would be greater prosperity for the ordinary fisherman. If it is felt by this Government, or if it is ever felt by a Fine Gael Government, that this should be handed over to private enterprise at some future stage, when the industry is much more prosperous, that is their business, but as far as we are concerned in this matter of the development of fisheries, we believe that some State or semi-State organisation could and should run these three factories for the benefit of the fishing industry and particularly for the benefit of the fishermen engaged in it.

It is appalling to come in here and listen to a Minister of State indulging in the clap-trap we have just heard from the Minister for Lands. He said that when the Galway factory was built, and from the time the Galway factory was built, the boats were scattered over those various ports in Ireland. That was dishonest and untrue. The Galway factory was not built until the Minister for Lands was put in charge of Fisheries. His predecessor just had time to open it, the man who is now Minister for Transport and Power, and he was in complete control. What might not have been noticed was that when he was talking about the scattering of the boats and about Deputy O'Donnell pulling somebody's coat-tails and somebody else pulling somebody else's coat-tails to get the boats scattered, his Parliamentary Secretary was trying to prompt him and trying to tell him that I had been pulling somebody's coat-tails. The only place to which I would have a boat sent is the port which catches more, Dunmore East.

That scarcely arises on the Money Resolution.

It arises in this way Sir, that I have an item here which shows the amount of money spent on this and I am replying to the Minister's statement that the boats were scattered. I have the account for the ports up to 27th March, 1962, for the previous 15 years. We got one boat out of this armada of boats——

The only question under discussion is the purpose for which the money is required.

(Interruptions.)

——and we should have had a salute of guns for that poor boat.

May I point out that the only matter under discussion is the purpose for which the money is required?

I will talk about the money. I have here a famous headline from The Kerryman:“Three months employment in Killybegs for 30 people.” It cost £233,000 per head to employ 30 people for three months. That is money. That is doing away with money and shovelling it down the drain. I want to be parochial about my own constituency and to point out that for eight years, I have been telling various Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers for Lands that more fish were caught in Dunmore year after year. At the same time, none of the money we voted here for Fisheries went to Dunmore and I shall prove it.

I propose to quote figures from the Dáil Debates, for the benefit of the Minister, on 31st May, 1960. The amount of money spent by his Department by way of grant to various ports was as follows: Killybegs, £102,000; Galway, £67,000; Schull, £36,000; Dingle, £21,000; Baltimore, £21,000; Castletownbere, £13,000; Caherciveen, £11,000; and Dunmore East, £19,000. How does this add up? The place which got £19,000 caught 296,000 boxes of fish and a place called Greencastle, for which £100,000 had been voted the year before, caught 2,454 boxes of fish—2,000 boxes of fish were caught in a place on which £100,000 had been spent. A sum of £19,000 was spent on Dunmore East when they put up the famous lollipop factory there. Is that a policy or is it idiocy?

I do not want anybody ducking his head or jumping out. That was done by this Minister and this Government. A sum of £100,000 was spent on Greencastle which brought in 2,000 boxes of fish. That would be caught in a bad day at Dunmore.

There was less caught at Schull.

Schull caught 14,000 boxes. That is not so bad as against the £100,000. I will defend the Leader of my Party and give you the figures. I am always a bad man to tackle. Schull got the buttons in comparison with Greencastle—but Schull caught 14,000 cwts. All this is very interesting, Sir——

It is a long way from the Money Resolution.

It cost money. I read out the amount of money spent on these and I want to know——

This is a limited amending Bill and the Money Resolution covers it. To that extent, the debate should be confined to the purpose for which the money is sought.

It is a very wide Bill and it is very seldom we get the chance——

It is not a very wide Bill, and a wide debate is not relevant.

The Chair will agree that it is a very important Bill?

All Bills are important.

Would you not agree that it is important if a Minister of State in this House makes a statement that is not true, and perfectly relevant for a Deputy to reply and tell him it was not true, and to prove, as I have proved by his own figures, that the statement about the scattering of the boats was not true? He had five years to bring the boats together. He did not bring them together. He had the famous three boats which were bought by his predecessor, now Minister for Defence, and £250,000 was lost on these three boats.

The Deputy is scattered, too.

I am not scattered at all.

Were they the boats which had no engines?

They had no engines and I have never been able to elucidate from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary who the man was who surveyed the boats and said they were seaworthy.

The matter does not arise on the Money Resolution.

We have to be careful to ensure that the man who surveyed those boats will not vet more boats which will perhaps be bought with the money now being put up. We should have been very suspicious when Deputy Childers, who was then Minister for Lands and Fisheries, ducked his head and got out. He saw the writing on the wall, or the rust on the boats. He "blew" and left office and left it to this Minister. I want to know what the future policy of the Department of Fisheries and of Bord Iascaigh Mhara is to be. Is it their intention to put up fish plants, piers and installations in places where fish are not being caught and where there is no chance of getting them?

That will not be done.

I am very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary saying that because I have put down a question for him, and I should not be giving him notice of it, but I had my doubts until he said so, because very prominent men attached to, or employed by, Bord Iascaigh Mhara have visited the most out of way places and they are reporting back and it could be possible that if they report back from some of these places, we might see ourselves with piers being built as the old Congested Districts Board built them out in the middle of a field. Mark you, it would be better to build a pier out in the middle of a field than to build it in some of the places in which the Parliamentary Secretary has built them because nothing ever pulls up there and no fish are ever landed there.

I will give the Parliamentary Secretary credit for wanting to make a success of the jungle handed over to him. I will ask him to look up the records of the port where they had to stop fishing. So much fish were sold, it was impossible to handle any more. A meeting had to be held on the pier in Dunmore East and they had to stop fishing.

Is that not an argument for spending the money elsewhere?

No; it is an argument for spending money in Dunmore East. For the benefit of the Taoiseach's son, the ice plant built in Dunmore East is only a lollipop factory.

There is a sucker born every minute.

I have a cutting here from the Waterford News and Star of 4th December, 1959:

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 of the fish trade.

That is past history. It will not be closed this year, I can assure you.

They were landing fish at the rate of 7,000 cran a day in this port. They landed so much they had to stop. The installations were everywhere else, but they were not where the fish were. It was not a case of the fish being there for that period only. This happened for years before and years afterwards. The people who know, the professionals in this job, have all the levels at Dunmore East covered with barrels and boxes in anticipation of the herring harvest. Many of the much-vaunted fishing ports are very picturesque to look at but I do not see the professionals pouring their barrels and boxes in there. They put them in the place where they know the fish are being caught.

I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the amount of money lost on the ice plants. This should not frighten the Parliamentary Secretary. They caught 120,000 boxes of fish in Killybegs and the ice plant lost £2,726. Dingle lost £299; Castletownbere lost £3; Ballycotton lost £437.

On a point of order, all this relates to the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, and there is no resolution before the House relating to an amendment of that Act. The Bill before the House is for the amendment of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, which relates entirely to inland fisheries.

That is not a point of order.

The Chair has allowed a certain amount of latitude but Deputies should make an effort to speak to the Bill, which is a limited amending Bill, We are now dealing with the Money Resolution.

I would submit that in the case of the 1952 Act now being amended, most of the money was raised under that Bill.

The Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, has nothing to do with that.

It has. You are amending it.

We are not. We are amending the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, which deals almost entirely with inland fisheries, their protection and development.

It contains all the previous Acts.

It does not.

It most certainly does.

Excuse me, as the authority responsible for the present in regard to fisheries legislation, I can assure the House that the measure we are discussing is an amendment of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, which brings together a number of previous enactments concerned with the development and protection of inland fisheries and matters ancillary thereto. The Deputy's remarks could be related to the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, but no amendment of that Act is contemplated in this measure or any measure related to it.

Schull lost £506. That will not break this House.

It could not lose very much because it is not even working.

These are your own figures.

If the Parliamentary Secretary were doing his job it would be working.

I know why the Deputy sited it there.

Will we be allowed to speak on this again, Sir?

No; there is normally only one speech in Committee on Finance.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to repeat what he said.

I do not intend to repeat it.

The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested I wined and dined in a certain house in Schull. I ask him to repeat it.

How does this arise?

Anything Schull got they deserved.

I do not think it is necessary for me to conclude in regard to these matters. The Minister for Lands made the position quite clear. Most of the remarks made by the speakers on the other side were not relevant to this particular matter.

We were replying to what the Minister said. The Minister said we scattered the boats after the Galway factory was built. The Minister himself was in office from the time the factory was built.

At least, we had boats to scatter.

And were scatterbrained, to boot.

The boats we scattered had engines anyway.

Question put and agreed to.
Resolution reported and agreed to.