I understand that this Bill is somewhat similar to a Bill dealing with local government that we recently discussed.
Fisheries (Statute Law Revision) Bill, 1949—Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The suggestion was that this Bill be sent to a Special Committee. If Senator Hawkins wishes we might take the Second Stage now and then send the Bill to the Special Committee, if the House is agreeable.
We circulated a White Paper giving information relative to the contents of this Bill and, it must, of necessity, be considered with the measure. Nothing I could say would add to the contents of the White Paper and I have no doubt that the Seanad sub-committee will review the contents of this Bill more closely in Committee than when the Bill returns here for its subsequent stages.
If the Seanad will graciously permit me, I should like to say a word or two on general policy in regard to this Bill.
Does acceptance of the Second Stage now preclude discussion generally of the principles of fisheries and fishery policy when the Bill comes before us again?
That would be my point, too.
May I make a respectful submission to the Seanad? These two Bills are tidying-up Bills. I shall bring before the Seanad, so soon as these are disposed of, a codifying Bill which will contain all the fishery law in Ireland. On that, of course, I shall be prepared to deal with fishery policy in its widest sense. To admit a discussion of fishery policy on a Fisheries (Statute Law Revision) Bill I think the most resourceful Senator will find it extremely difficult to do because, I take it, the rules of relevance controlling the Seanad are analogous at least to those controlling Dáil Éireann and I have no doubt that we could have a very enjoyable discussion on fishery policy generally on the codifying Bill. This is merely a definition Bill. It really has no legislative effect in the usual sense of that word at all. It merely deals with such things as, for instance, where in one Act the words "fishery engine" have been used, in a second Act the words "fishery instrument" have been used and in a third Act the words "fishery article" have been used. We declare that whenever these words appear we mean "fishery engine". That is the sole purpose of the Bill. It is codifying.
I feel that since discussion was so rapid and so brief on the first Bill that some of us might like to be afforded an opportunity of a general discussion on this Bill.
It is not for me to say whether general policy is in order on this Bill or not, but it is quite plain that if Senators want to discuss general policy the Second Stage is their opportunity. Therefore, Senators who want to discuss general policy should certainly not allow the Second Stage to go. I think that is the honest answer to the question which has been asked. I, therefore, move the Adjournment of the House.
Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
I should like to say a few words on Section 8 of this Bill. The Minister has said that on the whole there was no innovation of any kind in this Bill and that is clear, but it seems to me that Section 8 confers on the Minister powers which need the most elaborate and technical knowledge. He is permitted to "authorise any named person at any season of the year to do one or any of the following things" and so on. For the purpose of administering this section he will have to make decisions of the greatest importance for the welfare of the fisheries of this country and it seems to me that a matter of general policy is involved here and perhaps I may be permitted to say a word or two on that. It seems to me that the sturdy shoulders of the Minister for Agriculture are being burdened too heavily. It is a case of the willing horse being given most of the work. I hasten to add that what I am going to say is no disparagement of the present Minister for Agriculture. He has proved very clearly how fit he is to look after our land with energy, prudence, practical knowledge and, what is rare in agricultural matters, eloquence, but I do think that in the interests of the fisheries there is need for a separate Parliamentary Secretary and a separate Department for fisheries.
Going through the numbers in the Department of Agriculture at the moment, I find that there are five officials looking after the harvest of the sea and over 100 looking after the harvest of the land. It seems to me that something ought to be done to rectify the discrepancy there. It is hardly fair to expect one Minister to look after the welfare of plough and prow, field and keel, sail and kale, wheat and fleet, udder and rudder, sugar beet and fishing fleet. Did we not detect in the Minister in a speech on a previous Bill a certain diffidence and hesitancy about the rights of oysters in the case and a certain eagerness to have Bills put through rather faster than at an agricultural pace? I may be wrong but in my opinion, and I know that many others share this opinion, fisheries do need a single Department of the Government. When we travel abroad and see the fine fishing market towns in France, Spain and Greece and see their harbours filled with fishing ships and turn to our own country and see our fish shops stocked more with flies than fish and our harbours filled with pleasure yachts or seaweed rather than fishing ships we can realise the need for such a Department. The Minister has said that there is nothing progressive about these Bills and in that I entirely agree with him, but does he propose to present us with anything progressive in regard to the fishing policy in the near future? I am quite certain that the only solution to the problems that the fisheries present very gravely, is a separate Department. For example, it is almost impossible to buy fish except in Dublin or at one of our sea ports. We need more trawlers and subsidies for trawlers: we need in other words a progressive policy. If the fish in our seas—one of our most valuable foods — are to be harvested we must have a progressive policy.
I would urge the Minister in his own interests and in the interests of the country to set up a separate Department to divide, as it were, the allocation of loaves from the allocation of fishes and to give us that progressive policy which he so eloquently declaimed in the early debate.
Is ócáid an-tábhachtach í seo agus Bille i dtaobh na hiascaireachta a bheith os ár gcomhair. Is gnáthach linn bheith ag smaoineamh ar thionscail thábhachtacha na tíre, tionscail a chuirfeas saothrú ar fáil agus a chuirfeas saibhreas ar fáil, tionscail a chuirfeas ar ár gcumas trádáil a dhéanamh, ní amháin sa mbaile, ach le tíortha thar sáile.
Tá an talmhaíocht ar an gcéad cheann agus is dóigh liom gurb é an iascaireacht an dara ceann, má thugamuid faoi i gceart. Tá margadh mór in Éirinn le haghaidh éisc má eagraítear an margadh agus ní amháin go bhfuil margadh againn ach d'fhéadfadh sé bheith amhlaidh má thugaimid faoi i gceart go mbainfimid margadh amach i dtíortha i gcéin, rud a bheadh soilíosach dúinn má tá sé indéanta. Mar gheall ar cheist seo na mara náisiúnta, sé sin le rá, an teorann cheithre mhíle, dúirt an tAire gur rud dainséarach ceisteanna den tsórt seo a lua. Admhaím nach dtaithníonn le tíortha eile daoine a bheith ag cur isteach orthu, ach níor mhiste dhúinn inseacht do thíortha eile an spéis atá againn ins an gceist seo, agus inseacht dóibh chomh tábhachtach agus atá sé dúinne go ndéanfar réiteach ar an moladh agus, más féidir, é a dhéanamh chomh luath agus is féidir.
Ba mhaith liom go gcuimhneodh an tAire ar chuid de na ceisteanna seo. Bhfuil aon scrúdú déanta aige i dtaobh iascaireachta na mara doimhne? Bhfuil aon tuairim aige nó an bhfuil aon fhiosrú déanta aige faoi céard is féidir linn a dhéanamh maidir le forás a chur ar an mbrainse sin de thionscal na hiascaireachta? An bhfuil na fír againn oilte don iascaireacht, leis na báid a stiúradh agus leis an iascaireacht féin a dhéanamh? Bhfuil aon fhiosrú déanta ar an taobh sin den scéal? Bhfuil aon bheartas ceaptha amach ag an Aire ina chóir sin? Ar an chaoi chéana, tá scéal iascaireacht inbhir mí-shásúil. Tá, ní amháin i nGaillimh ach ar fud na tíre, iascairí agus daoine nach iascairí iad, mí-shásta leis an tseilbh, leis an uachtaránacht, atá ag daoine áirithe príobháideacha ar an iascaireacht. Níl fhios agam arb é leas na hiascaireachta go gcuirfí na daoine sin as seilbh nó a mhalairt, ach is ceist í a bhfuil a lán daoine sa tír ag machnamh agus ag caint uirthi agus ba mhaith leo treoir éigin údarásach ina taobh d'fháil. Iascaireacht chladaigh nó éadoimhin, níl an scéal sin sásúil ach oiread. Nuair a chuimhnaíos duine ar Chontae na Gaillimhe, áit a bhfuil suas agus anuas le cheithre chéad míle de chósta againn agus gan ann ach dornán beag daoine ag plé eis an iascaireacht agus ar éigin go bhfuighfí leath-chéad duine atá ag plé le hiascaireacht mar shlí bheatha, ní féidir a rá go bhfuil an scéal seo sásúil ann. Leis an nganntanas atá ar bhiadh agus na tuairimí nua atá againn i dtaobh tábhacht bidh áirithe, is dóigh liom go bhfuil margadh anmhór ann don iasc má cuirtear ar fáil é agus má cuirtear ar fáil ar luachanna réasúnta é. Ba chóir go mbeadh iascaireacht chladaigh anluachmhar agus níl fhios agam tar éis a bhfuil déanta ag Bord na nIascairí Mara an bhfuil rath ar an scéal an oiread agus ba cheart a bheith. Bhfuil an scéal sin scrúdaithe ag an Aire agus an bhfuil sé sásta go bhfuil an oiread déanta agus is féidir? An dóigh leis gur féidir an brainse sin den tionnscal a fheabhsú thar mar atá? Ar an chaoi chéanna, iascaireacht aibhne agus locha — tá fhios againn i nGaillimh an toradh maith atá ar an iarracht bheag atá déanta — agus níl ann ach iarracht bheag i ndeireadh na dála — maidir le síolrúchán bric i gcóir na loch.
An méid atá déanta anseo agus an méid atá déanta in áiteacha eile an fianaise sáthach maith é gur féidir níos mó a dhéanamh ar an mbealach sin? An dócha gur iarracht é gur fiú a chothú agus a leathnú agus dá réir sin tairbhe luachmhar an bhrainse sin den iascaireacht a chur chun cinn. Níl fhios agam an bhfuil aon mhachnamh déanta aige i dtaobh oiliúint, i dtaobh tréanáil, daoine i gcóir an tionscail. Tá fhios agam le blianta go bhfuil scoltacha éagsúla ar bun sa tír gurb é a gcuspóir cuidiú le mairnéalaaigh oilte a chur ar fáil. I nGaillimh, tá scoil seoltóireachta againn mar bhrainse den ghairm-scoil agus i mBaile Atha Cliath agus i gCorcaigh is dóigh liom tá scoltacha speisialta eile. Tá cúpla scoil ag obair agus sé an chuspóir atá acu daoine d'oiliúint i gcóir na mairnéalachta, ach is léir nach leor sin má tá aon tuairim againn gur féidir an tionscal seo a leathnú. Más linn cabhlach cheart, láidir, bheith againn le dul amach ar an doimhin chomh maith leis an éadoimhin, níl aon mhaith bheith ag caint air go dtí go mbeidh na daoine ullamh chun na hoibre, agus ba mhaith linn léargas d'fháil ar an scéal seo chun go bhfeádfadh na daoine óga a shocrú dóibh féin an fiú dóibh dul isteach ar an mbrainse sin ceardaíochta le súil go bhfuighdís slí bheatha as an iascaireacht. Tá fhios agam nach bhfuil se furasta na daoine a mhealladh. Tá roinnt scoláireachtaí le fáil ag daoine óga chun dul isteach in sna scoltacha sin ach níl aon fhonn ró-mhór orthu glacadh leo agus an fáth atá leis an éiginnteacht atá ann ó thaobh an tionscail.
Mar gheall ar an iascaireacht mhídhlisteanach, is baolach go bhfuil cuid mhaith de ar siúl. Deireann an tAire gur deacair go minic a rá an bhfuil beart mí-dhlisteanach ar bun ag bád seachas bád eile. Cinnte, má thagann bád isteach agus rud éigin ar cearr léi maidir le cabhail nó maidir le goireas, ba cheart gurbh fhurasta é sin d'fháil amach. Ba cheart go mbféidir seilbhéirí bheith ann sna priomh-chaladhphoirt agus go dtiocfaidis uair ar bith is gá é ag scrúdú na mbád a fhógraíos go bhfuil briseadh éigin nó damaíste éigin orthu.
Thug an tAire míniú dhuínn ar chomh mí-oiriúnach agus tá cuid de na bád atá againn faoi láthair le cosaint cheart a thabhairt don iascaireacht. Níl a fhios agam ar thug an tAire cothrom na Feínne do na baíd agus do na fir atá i mbun na mbád agus an dóigh ar labhair sé orthu. An t-am a cheannaigh an tír seo na báid — torpedo boats agus corvettes — ceannaíodh iad le haghaidh cuspóirí seachas cosaint a thabhairt don iascaireacht. Ní dóigh liom go n-abróidh aon duine gur báid iad atá feiliúnach le haghaidh na hoibre atá ar intinn ag an Aire. Más dóigh linn go bhfuil na báid sin as maith mar bháid chosanta don tír, díolaimis iad, ach níor ceannaíodh iad le go mbeidís mar bháid chosanta i gcóir na hiascaireachta. Más dóigh leis an Aire gur féidir dó báid níos feiliúnaí d'fháil le haghaidh cosanta na hiascaireachta ceannaíodh sé iad agus beidh beannacht gach duine air.
Thairis sin ní dóigh liom gur gá a thuille a rá i dtaobh an Bhille. Mhínigh an tAire cuspóirí an Bhille agus tá mé sásta nach féidir linn agus nach gá dhúinn mion-chur síos a dhéanamh uirthi anois ó alt go halt ach ba mhaith liom go háirithe, ós rud é go bhfuil Alt a 8 curtha síos ar an mbealach atá, go gcuimhneodh an tAire ar na ceisteanna atá mé tar éis a lua agus má tá ar a chumas, freagra a thabhairt dom — ní hé amháin freagra díreach ar na ceisteanna seo ach léargas éigin a thabhairt dúinn faoi céard is dóigh leis i dtaobh na hiascaireachta san am atá le teacht, beimid buíoch de.
It would be helpful, and a great many people would be very interested, if the Minister would give his views on the several very important points raised by Senator Stanford. Many people have spoken to me about fish since I became a member of the Seanad, on the same lines as Senator Stanford. The complaint of many people seems to be that there is a very inadequate supply of fish in the country, and that the price of fish is very high in comparison with other foods of similar value and in comparison with the price of fish in Britain. A statement by the Minister as to what he intends to do to rectify this position would be welcomed by many people.
I would ask the Minister to give some information as to what he proposes to do with the cot net fishermen who were precluded from fishing on the River Suir under the last Act of the Oireachtas. These men have been deprived of the means of earning their livelihood in the manner of the vocation of themselves and their fathers, and no compensation of any sort has been given to them. I would like the Minister to give us some information as to his intention of treating these men. Many of them are now old and it is time someone drew attention to it, as they are in a dire state and many of them are objects of charity. Their numbers are not large and I think that, when action was taken to improve the fishing industry and these people suffered in so doing, the State should be able to give them some compensation for their loss.
Captain Orpen
Would the Minister not think it advisable to clear up the misunderstanding throughout the country as to his policy regarding fish, as it seems to be a complete reversal of his land policy where he believes in modern methods and efficiency. When it comes to fish he leaves out the efficiency and continues on prehistoric methods. I should like him to repeat what he has said elsewhere about retaining the inshore fishermen and excluding the trawler. I would like him to justify that policy in the light of the fact that over a large part of Ireland it is impossible to get fish at any time of the year. It should be possible to devise a scheme whereby the deep sea trawler could be used in some areas to supplement the inadequate supplies provided by those who have been styled part-time fishermen and part-time farmers. I have been informed that men who previously were inshore fishermen and came from such families are now working as deck hands on trawlers functioning from Milford Haven, as they found that a more satisfactory life. On more that one occasion people have asked me whether it would be possible to start a small fleet of trawlers under our Flag for our own coast, but up to the present these prospective trawler fleet promoters do not seem quite satisfied that they will be permitted to land their fish and sell it here. I would welcome a comprehensive statement from the Minister.
I would like to avail of the occasion to direct the Minister's attention to the grievances of some of my constituents who suffer from being denied the right to fish in certain stretches of the Moy, which they maintain have been leased to a private individual. They fish for sport and have spent a certain amount of money on equipment and maintain at least two hatcheries at their own expense. Some time ago, a party of them discussed this with me, saying that during the time of the late Government they directed a communication to the Department responsible stating that they were prepared to onerate themselves with the responsibility of looking after the fishery in certain stretches of this river and pointing out what they had done to increase the supply of fresh water fish through hatcheries. They maintain they were replied to only after seven months and that within that period the fishing rights of that particular stretch were handed over to a private individual. There may be other such cases in Mayo and I would like an answer to that question. I was not asked to raise it, but I am satisfied the Minister will see that the reasonable and legitimate desires of these people are catered for, in any future legislation he introduces into the Oireachtas.
I was not under the impression that this was an occasion on which the Seanad would gladly hear a discussion of fishery policy at large. It is sometimes difficult for a member of the other House to call to mind the fact that a subject which has been eagerly canvassed in the Dáil and dealt with very exhaustively has not been brought to the attention of the members of the Seanad. Having an understanding heart, I accept Senator Professor Stanford's gracious observations in the spirit in which they are uttered. I do not know that it is always complimentary, no matter how gracefully phrased, to be told that the best service one could do the nation would be to hand one's Department over to somebody else, but I can understand that it is a perfectly fair and legitimate view that there should be a Minister for Fisheries, a Minister for Agriculture, a Minister for Local Government, a Minister for Health, and that this combination of functions is calculated to do disservice to one or other of the Departments the Minister is charged to take care of. However, I would be dismayed if so responsible a Senator as Senator Stanford felt on reflection that he was justified in laying at my door the charge of failure to operate a progressive policy in the Department of Fisheries.
On the 20th and 21st May, in Dáil Éireann, the Estimate for the Department of Fisheries was discussed and I there expounded a policy, to which strong exception was taken by certain Deputies; and after a pretty vigorous debate going on for two days, I adhered to the views I had originally expressed and had the invigorating experience of actually making a convert. That is one of the most interesting things that ever happened in the history of this Parliament, because, as you all know, converts are as rare, not as white blackbirds but as pink blackbirds. One member actually waited on me and said that before the debate he had taken one view and by the time the debate was over he had actually changed his mind. So, fired by that success, I propose now to start on Senator Stanford.
There is a great deal of well-intentioned talk about the desirability of modern methods for deep-sea trawling, and the necessity to provide big quantities of fish for the vast market that exists in Ireland. Let us take these anxious one after another. Is there a market for fish in Ireland? I have forehand advantage of many Senators, because I was for a considerable time a rural fishmonger. The only reason I got out of it was that nobody would buy fish. Try to sell fish in any rural town in Ireland on any day except Friday and reckon up your profits at the end of the week's trading. It is true that you may sell some fish, but you will not sell enough to realise the cost of burying the fish you did not sell. Where are the fishmongers in rural Ireland clamouring for supplies of fish and unable to get them? Does any Senator know of any fishmongers that have closed down thriving businesses in rural Ireland because they could not get fish to supply the streams of customers they turned disappointedly away? Let us face realities.
In normal times there never was any difficulty in getting supplies of fish, if you knew how to go about it. You rang up a wholesaler and asked him to send you fish and he sent it. I regret to say that in my experience it is only when the fish arrived that your troubles began. I think most people who made the effort in rural Ireland will tell the same story. Our people are not a fish eating people. They do not like fish. I have been taken to task severely for saying what I conceived it my duty to say. I did not believe it to be any part of my duty to persuade anybody that he should eat this or eat that. I think when a free man has earned a week's wages by the sweat of his brow he is quite entitled to eat what he likes. My view is that anybody who wants fish should be able to get fish, and I charge myself with the duty of seeing that any Irish fisherman who catches fish will have a market in which he will have a profit. When Senator Ó Buachalla states that there is a large market for fish in Ireland which we were failing to fill, I only wish there were——
I think what I asked was whether the Minister had investigated the possibility of the market here, the possibility of the market abroad and, in view of the information collected, to divulge the policy he had in mind.
The answer is that I closely investigated the potentiality of the market in a restricted area, but that personal experience, of course, could not influence my activities as a Minister. I have made and continue to make inquiries on the potential domestic market and the revelations are not encouraging. None the less, the limited nature of the domestic market, I think, may, in fact, be deemed to be a blessing in some way, because if the existing demand were very greatly in excess of the inshore fishermen's ability to supply, assuming maximum effort with available equipment, the Minister for Fisheries would be in a very difficult position; whereas my policy will be far easier of realisation on a market containing the potentiality of a demand growing in step with our development of inshore fishing, rather than on an existing market clamorous for supplies far in excess of our maximum capacity to supply.
The Senator deplored the fact that we had no coal-burning trawlers for deep-sea fishing. What do Senators mean by trawling? Must it be a boat trawling for fish or a boat with smoke out of the funnel, bobbing up and down in the sea? What virtue is there in a ship with smoke from the funnel over the ship that has not? I often wonder if people who interest themselves enthusiastically in fishery matters ever try to see what they are aiming at. I know what I am aiming at. I think most people who understand the fishery situation in this country agree that we can do one of two things. We can either invite all and sundry into the fishing trade of Ireland or we can make up our minds that we are going to reserve the domestic market for fish for the 10,000 part-time and whole-time inshore fishermen. It is important to remember that, when you think of those 10,000 men, the part-time men amongst them avail of fishing to add that modicum to the income they derive from their land which they would otherwise have to seek by migratory labour. If this Oireachtas ever makes up its mind to wipe out the inshore fishermen in the holy cause of modern efficiency let them remember that it is an irrevocable decision. If their way of life is brought to an end it can never be revived. They will be scattered; their families will be scattered; their homes will become uneconomic — and an independent, self-supporting, dignified section of our community overnight will become a virtually insoluble social problem.
When I entered public life first I represented County Donegal, which was very largely a constituency of fishermen. I have no doubt at all that to preserve the inshore fishermen should be the primary purpose of the Department of Fisheries in this country and, so long as I am Minister for Fisheries, that will be the purpose of my Ministry. It is entirely illusory to imagine that you can have trawling on the Grimsby, Norwegian or Icelandic model based on this country side by side with the inshore fisherman's industry. Large trawlers such as are employed by these countries must, for their profitable operation, bring home substantial hauls. Their very size demands that. The landing of those hauls in Ireland at once provides, not only a sufficiency for the domestic market, but a substantial surplus which must be exported. The justification for the existence of such a company is the building up of an export trade to consume the surplus catch. You cannot have a surplus until you have a sufficiency at home, but it is on the sufficiency at home that the inshore fisherman depends for his existence, and if you postulate the saturation of the domestic market before the steam trawler company begins to make profit, must you not postulate the elimination of the inshore fishermen? I postulate the prohibition of the steam trawler and the protection of the inshore fishermen. Both these views are perfectly legitimate. One is not the quintessence of patriotism and the other a foreign heresy, but they are two diametrically opposed views for both of which a case can be made, but one of which I hold with profound conviction, and it is right that the Seanad should know that so long as I am Minister for Fisheries it is a view which I intend vigorously to prosecute. Therefore, so long as I am Minister for Fisheries, no trawling company operating steam trawlers will be licensed to operate in this country. I have already turned down four or five applications from foreign companies which were prepared to have part Irish capital, and even Irish companies, who desired to build up a fleet to saturate the domestic market and have some for export. Quite deliberately I have refused to license any company for such operations in this country and will continue to do so. I think that an absolutely essential concomitant to that policy is that the consumer will be assured an adequate supply of good fish at a reasonable price and unless the inshore fisherman is equipped, and is himself willing to work hard to fill that requirement, neither he nor I can hope successfully to maintain the policy which I am at present concerned to defend. I am convinced that we can so equip him and that, given the equipment, he will deliver the goods and I think that it is eminently worth taking whatever measures may be requisite to bridge the interval required for his equipment and adequate training so that the market may be preserved intact for the inshore fisherman when he is fitted to fill it.
To that end, therefore, I propose to reconstitute the Sea Fisheries Association on the lines of a co-operative representative of the inshore fishermen. That done, no one, other than the Sea Fisheries Association, will be licensed to land fish in Ireland. The first objective of the Sea Fisheries Association will be to supply the demand from the fish caught and landed by our own fishermen operating their own boats. In so far as lacunae may occur, owing to unforeseen circumstances in the continuity of supply, I propose to authorise the inshore fishermen's co-operative to purchase fish abroad and fill that gap. It may be a gap of two days or four days or, in exceptional circumstances, a week or ten days in the earlier stages. Therefore, the first duty of the Sea Fisheries Association is to provide whatever is required. Remember, we have two problems — demersal fish and pelagic fish and they are very remarkably different problems. The second duty of the Sea Fisheries Association is to provide the fishermen with boats and gear of types suitable for their particular kind of fishing on terms which it is possible for them to pay, and of a quality which will guarantee their ability to do the job if they are prepared to do the work. To that end, we are purchasing every 50-foot boat that will be produced in all the boat yards in Ireland this year and seeking to purchase 20 more boats of that size engined and equipped in foreign boat yards. Heretofore, our men had used 30-foot and 40-foot boats. We are now concentrating on producing 50-foot boats and we are contemplating by way of experiment, procuring one or two 60-foot and, I think, 75-foot boats with a view to testing out whether vessels larger that the 50-foot boat, which is recorded as being the largest used by our men, would be more economical and more efficient. It is by no means certain that they would. Up to this year we have found very great difficulty in getting any gear. That difficulty, I am glad to say, is beginning to grow less. Gear is still a problem, but I foresee that at a reasonably early date the supply will be adequate to our requirements.
Under existing conditions it is now virtually true to say with regard to all varieties of demersal fish that the fisherman knows what he is going to get before he goes out and our aim is regarding demersal fish to provide, once the fisherman returns, that the door to the market is open. His pay and his market are our problem and when I say "our" problem I mean the Sea Fisheries Association. There are seasonal exceptions with regard to whiting, but even in those seasonal periods of exception it is open to the men to go further afield and bring in the type of fish for which there is a guaranteed price.
With regard to pelagic fish, herring and mackerel, there are a great many people, I venture to say, who labour under the illusion that vast surpluses of herrings are habitually hauled ashore and cast back into the sea — a complete illusion. At the present moment our difficulty is that we cannot get enough herring. Unfortunately the ways of fish are unpredictable and sometimes there is more herring than you can conveniently handle and again there is none to be had at all. To meet that situation, however, we are, I hope, successfully promoting a canned herring industry for which there will be, I believe, a larger market abroad than there is at home. The Sea Fisheries Association will regard it as their duty to supply the canners with the fish they want when they want them rather than to tell the canners to be grateful for whatever fish they get whether it is at a time they want them or not.
We have recently had a trade delegation in Germany hopefully trying to sell fish. I do not deny that I experienced some disappointment when I heard from the officials of my Department that when with sparkling eyes they announced that they were in a position to offer fish to the hungry citizens of the German Republic they were met with howls of horror that they were already inundated with fish. I think there might be found in that company one to rival my indiscretion by saying that he hated the very sight of fish as they have so much of it. Not in the least deterred, we are trying to find another market. It is not so easy to get because when we have fish it very commonly happens that everybody else has fish. Mackerel is a fish which, as many Senators here know, on our south-west coast arrives on occasion in uncontrollable shoals. Can any Senator tell me where I can sell mackerel? Because I would be very ready and willing to send someone to any market any Senator cares to name to me to sell mackerel and we are quite prepared to follow the vaguest rumour of a market. We cannot find one to date but we are still trying. There was a time when we had a very good market in Hamburg and New England for pickled mackerel. There was a time when Castletownberehaven depended very largely on the mackerel, but mackerel is very hard to sell now. If it were not, we have plenty of mackerel, plenty of fishermen, plenty of people well able to deal with it and we would take a very competitive price.
I often wonder what do people who have a really public-spirited and disinterested solicitude for the fishing industry imagine that the controlling officers of the Sea Fisheries Association spend their time at. Surely it is ordinary human nature, if people have chosen to make their career in the service of fishermen and the fishing industry, to want to make a success of it. It is the very odd man who philosophically consecrates his life to being a failure and a dud. If you have to work eight hours a day you might just as well try to cut a figure and be a success as painfully and laboriously to earn the reputation of being a dud. Why do people cheerfully assume that everybody whose life is given to fishery interests, whose career depends on the successful development of fisheries, whose living and sleeping interest is the promotion of fisheries, in fact knows "sweet Fanny Adams" about it and cares less? It is quite amusing. The officers of the Ministry in charge of fisheries and the Minister who presides over it are poor creatures no doubt, but at least they are interested. They do their modest best and they do energetically seek any market where their wares may be sold even if they can only break even. I beg Senators to believe that simply because those whom Oireachtas Eireann have put in charge of the Department responsible for fisheries were born in Ireland, that in itself is not synonymous with their being incompetent fools. It is an interesting thing that the much-despised officials of that Department are consulted not infrequently by wiseacres who control the destinies of fishery departments in various parts of the world. Mind you, I wonder when people speak lightly of the desirability of trawl and the indispensability of trawl do they ever ask themselves where is Great Britain at present with her fishing? She cannot bring in enough herself to provide for her own people. Who is to fill the gap — the Danish fishing fleet? How many trawlers have they? None. What is the bulk of their fishing fleet? Fifty-foot boats. They have modelled their policy on the lines of the Irish Sea Fisheries Association. How many Senators are aware of that fact? Is it not an interesting thing that public representatives in this country see no inconsistency in saying that we cannot possibly fish successfully unless we equip ourselves with vessels that would enable our fishermen to travel to the Norwegian and Spanish coasts and to other fishing grounds but on the other hand we have those same public representatives complaining that foreign trawlers are invading our fishing grounds? Those foreign trawlers would not come there if it was not worth their while to fish off the South Cork coast and other places. If it is worth their while should it not be equally worth the while of our fishermen to go out from Berehaven? Why is it if the fishing grounds around Ireland are an attraction to foreign trawlers of many nations seeking the prey here, that if it is not worth their while to go elsewhere and why, if they can find it profitable, is it considered that the same salt water is incapable of contributing a herring's tail to Irish fishermen? What consistency is there in that? I can never understand that situation.
Our purpose in any case is so to equip our fishermen that they can go where it best pays them to go in search of whatever quality of fish they can earn the best profit on in the knowledge that there is a guaranteed market for whatever fish they bring in.
I have told you we are building boats in Ireland. We have rebuilt the yard at Meevagh and at Killybegs and shall equip one at Dingle and we will soon probably develop one in South Cork. We aim to produce from our own yards all the boats our men require. I believe we will meet their requirements from whatever sources boats can be got until such times as our own yards are capable of meeting the demand. We shall supply all the gear that is needed. It is a remarkable thing that after the last war nearly all the fishermen were bankrupt and a high percentage of those debts had to be written off as bad. We do not anticipate that even 5 per cent. of those now owing money will default because the men are able to pay out of the money they are able to make.
In the matter of the shell-fishing industry, I hope that the reconstituted Sea Fisheries Association will take this under control. I was born and reared in what must have been a very conservative atmosphere but as I grow older I move further to the left. I am sorry to say that the more we have to do with the entrepreneur the more apparent it becomes that there are simple people available for exploitation and you will always have a few hyenas sniffing around to try and get in on the job. Perhaps I have a jaundiced view. If I have I am afraid that is the view the Department of Fisheries is going to have and the shell-fishing exports of this country will be substantially handled and controlled by the Sea Fisheries Association acting on behalf of the fishermen who catch the fish. I do not say that that will exclude those desirous of engaging in the business but at some stage the Department will intervene to ensure that the man who catches the fish will get paid for it.
I do not want to go into more detail than that, for if I did, I could tell the Seanad a strange story, but as this is an incident of yesteryear, I will not go into it now in detail.
The Seanad has brought this upon its own head. They asked for a statement on fishery policy and they are going to get it lock, stock and barrel, and I have only just begun.
That relates to the beginning of the Department's policy on sea fishing. We turn now to the question of our inland fisheries. They are of great importance and I must tell the Seanad, with great respect, that they constitute a subject on which a great deal of rubbish has been talked from time to time. To begin with, in the Dáil ten years ago, an Act was passed by my predecessor providing that certain rights in freshwater fishing would be extinguished at the beginning of 1948. This matter was referred to by Senator Denis Burke. In the extinguishing of these fishing rights on these waters, I am providing for adequate compensation for everyone injured in the process of extinction. As is so often the case, even with a degree of anticipatory intelligence you cannot foresee every kind of case that will arise. It was never the intention, when the legislation was before the Oireachtas, to imply that it could not be amended if difficulties arose. Very soon it became evident that some small classes of persons who manifestly were entitled to compensation were not covered by the provision made. Senator D. Burke may reassure the people on whose behalf he spoke that they constitute, so far as I can see, one small category of many who will be provided for on terms no less favourable than those provided in the original Act, but it is undoubtedly better that we should wait a little to see the whole picture of those who have been left out by the general terms originally employed, so that when we come to amend the original legislation, we may do so with some degree of finality. In any case, the Oireachtas will be asked to make whatever provision was then made retrospective to put it on a ground of equality with the compensation provided in the Principal Act.
When you come to deal with the development of fresh water fisheries you can get as many opinions as there are men, and all of them respectable. It is not an exact science. Ask the best of the experts, the most experienced men, what they would do on any given river or lake for its improvement, and I think it is true to say that you will get as many opinions as you meet consultants. That being so, I am not in the least dismayed. I propose to try them all, one after the other. Many people advocate the removal of coarse fish from a trout lake which is declining, and others will tell you that to remove all the coarse fish will result in a multiplication of the trout population, and a situation will arise in which all the fish are three inches long and are there in great multitude. I propose to adopt the middle course and to remove half the coarse fish, and, on another lake, to remove one-quarter by the simple method of taking all out and putting three-quarters back again.
I can see no approach except the pragmatic approach, of experiment, of trial and error, and that we propose to adopt. Do not imagine for a moment that we have allowed ourselves to be driven to the pragmatic approach for want of research — far from it. I suppose the Lough Leven trout lakes of Scotland are probably regarded as the very centre of learning in all matters of trout fisheries, and there we have had our officers for varying terms to learn all that could be learned and bring it home. We are quite prepared to send our officers anywhere else in the world where we believe knowledge or information is to be gleaned. We are in no way proud. We are always willing to learn and are not infrequently flattered to discover that there are people in the world who think they can learn from us. I can reassure the Seanad that there is no body in the world has so low an opinion of the Irish Department of Fisheries as Seanad Éireann or Dáil Éireann. I suppose it is common experience that no man is a prophet in his own land, but it will be a consolation to Oireachtas Eireann to know that our reputation outside the country is not as bruised and battered as it appears to be at home.
There are others who tell you that the P.H. content of water gravely affects the fish population of a river. We are not a bit proud. We have hung a bag of lime in a river to see what the result would be. We are taking other devices to alter the P.H. of the water in fishery rivers to see what the result would be. There are others who will tell you that the correct provision of spawning beds in existing lakes contributes to an improvement. We do not believe it, but there are certain earnest anglers' associations in this country who hold that view most strongly. We think they are wrong, but we have built the spawning beds and we have built them in the way they want them built, and we shall be delighted if we discover that they are right and we are wrong, and be most grateful for their instruction. If there is any other responsible body of anglers in this country who have any rational proposal to make to our Department of Fisheries, designed to improve the fishing in their river or any other river or lake they know of, they have only to send us a ½d. postcard, and, if it is within our capacity to try out their plan or help them in any other way, we shall be happy to do so, because we are longing for the opportunity.
Has any Senator ever met anyone who approached the Department of Fisheries with a proposal that approximated to the rational who was not enthusiastically received and who did not get a reasonable and gratifying measure of co-operation? It is quite an illusion to imagine that the Department is like an ivory tower into which no man may penetrate and in which no voice of counsel has ever been heard for the past half century. Surely those who feel that the chill of death is descending upon us in the Department will at least pay us the compliment of paying us a visit. It is harsh judgement to say that a man is dead but he will not lie down, if you have never even seen him, and it seems irrational to complain that nothing is being done, if you have never asked. I want to put this test and by it let the Department be judged.
Everything we know that can be done for the improvement of our inland fisheries is in the process of being done and will go on being done. Ours is the pragmatic approach. We have no desire to condemn any proposal put forward rationally and responsibly on purely theoretical grounds. We are conscious of how inexact a science to date the development of fresh water fisheries undoubtedly is. We will be grateful to any responsible anglers' association or individuals interested in fisheries who will come to us with any proposal. Do not let him be afraid to come and say he heard it from his grandfather's grandfather, because there is a wealth of wisdom in the pishrogues of rural Ireland. If it has not been tried before, and if it offers a new angle on an existing problem, we are quite prepared to try it.
Where does the Department of Fisheries fail in its desire to serve either its employer or the interests of the industry it is charged to serve? What can it do that it is not doing? There is nothing being left undone for the want of means — nothing at all. If there is anything which any Senator has to suggest that should be done, with the prospect of serving a useful purpose, we can put it in hand forthwith, but we cannot guarantee that every poacher in Ireland will certainly be illuminated with the grace of the Holy Ghost and give up poaching. Can any Senator? Unless he can, there is one problem the solution of which would make a very real contribution to the development of fisheries. I have appointed a multitude of water bailiffs and in other areas I have appointed every poacher in the district. They belong to every Party in the State and there was no suggestion of political preference. There is no lack of versatility in the Department of Fisheries and we are prepared to have recourse to any device that will stop poaching. There is a certain sum that may be used for preventive purposes. You may appoint a number of vigilant and active water bailiffs, paying them a substantial fee — actually, the appointment is done by a board of conservators, and submitted for approval to me — or you may appoint the poachers and have all the poachers go out and watch one another. Both devices have been known to serve in the appropriate locale, both have been approaved by me, and if there is any other device within the four corners of the criminal law for deterring poachers we will be prepared to try it.
I know there are certain Senators who are saying now within themselves: "Tch, tch, I wish the Minister would not be so flamboyant, saying he approves of appointing all the poachers." I did, quite literally, and if that is flamboyant it is just too bad. I would do it again to-morrow, if I thought that was the best way to stop poaching. There is no use in pretending that our people are the kind who respectfully bow the head when you read the book of law and warn them they are all very bad boys if they do not conform to it. We are not a very law-abiding people and I am not so sure that that is a bad thing. We have so high a passion for individual liberty that we have been known to carry it too far. Better to carry it too far than to carry devotion to discipline too far. The middle road is ideal, but if there be deflections, God grant that in this country they should always be on the side of individual liberty. Therefore, we are not in the least afraid of unprecedented devices, always within the four corners of the criminal law, to abate any evil that exists. Since the very unorthodoxy of these revelations to Senators will embolden the more diffident of your number to make suggestions to the Department of Fisheries for additional exertions, may I appeal to Senator Stanford to make his contribution to Thalassa? I await it with interest and it may be made per se or per alia.
I was gravely taken to task in another place by those who had expert knowledge to commend their views. I demurred. I was reassured that the views expressed were sustained by expert advice and I asked the experts to come and see me. I treasure the letter which I received from them after the interview, to say that they thought I was perfectly right. Could it be that if Senator Professor Stanford comes, flanked by experts, I should have a trinity of conversion? If I had, that fortunate coincidence of name would entitle it to respect. I would value it very highly, for I would feel that it was a disinterested judgment honestly given by public-spirited men. No Minister can be sustained by more valuable assistance.
Senator Orpen speaks of my devotion to efficiency on the land and antediluvian methods on the sea. No, I do not think one has to make smoke in order not to be antediluvian. This passion for trawlers that make smoke may be found ultimately to be an antediluvian view. I have no doubt that the natives in darkest Africa would be much impressed by a ship that made smoke, while one that went along under its own power without any noise at all would be quite a familiar object. I suppose we would say then that their devotion to ships that made smoke demonstrated how little removed from cave men they were. Who said to-day that inshore fishermen were leaving their homes and found themselves happier and better occupied on trawlers sailing from Grimsby? Was it Senator Orpen?
Captain Orpen
I said I was informed that they were working on the fleet from Milford Haven.
That may be so. But I must say that anything I saw of trawling led me to believe that the conditions under which the men worked were as disagreeable industrial conditions as it is possible to imagine. It is a standard of life and a standard of values as remote from our people as any standard I could conceive, and I doubt if it has very much changed. However, it is not on sentimental or romantic grounds that I reject it. I reject it on the very clear, plain and incontrovertible grounds I have put before the Seanad.
Senators will realise that I have only touched the fringe of this problem. They will find a good deal more in Volume 115 of the Dáil Debates, Booklets Nos. 14 and 15. If that fails to slake their thirst for knowledge, I invite any Senator here to pay us the compliment of writing down any query which occurs to him or which he has heard perplexing others. We will esteem it a privilege to give him a full and comprehensive answer, as we see it. We will welcome it if he can prove us mistaken and show us a better way. We mean that quite sincerely. There is one thing that troubles us a little, though, and that is when our employers, without even taking the trouble to make our acquaintance, ask us if we have not heard the universal proclamation that we are dead but we will not lie down. We do not think we are dead and we are not going to lie down. We do not despair of performing minor miracles of restoring the fishing industry; and we do not even despair of performing the major miracle of persuading our own employers to give us a fair chance.
Question put and agreed to.