I desire to call the attention of the House before this prolonged adjournment takes place to the unsatisfactory condition of the Free State fishing industry. This time last year, when the House was also about to adjourn for the Summer Recess, the Minister for Fisheries told us that he had in preparation a scheme for setting up a sea fisheries association and that steps were being taken to implement that association legislatively. We discovered, however, when the Estimates came up for discussion about three months ago, that the sea fisheries organisation had not materialised. It was pointed out that the amount of money which was granted for fishery development, particularly in the case of sea fisheries, was quite inadequate, even for the restricted service which the Fishery Department is now giving. The amount of money granted last April, when the Vote was passed here was only £9,800, of which only £5,000 was for sea fisheries.
The total amount allocated for the purposes of developing and establishing the sea-fishing industry during the coming financial year is £5,000. Last year it was £13,500. There has been a steady decline, as Deputies of all Parties know, in the expenditure made available for this purpose. In 1925-26 the amount made available was £39,000; in 1929-30 it was £18,000, while this year it is less than £10,000, of which only half goes for sea-fisheries. It is obvious, therefore, that no steps have been taken to set up a proper organisation in connection with the fishing industry. I have already called the attention of the House on previous occasions to the fact that the proposals, which the Minister for Fisheries told us twelve months ago he had in hand and which he proposed to bring before the Dáil at an early date, are substantially those recommended by the old Dáil Commission of Inquiry about 1920 or 1921. Nine or ten years have elapsed since then, but nothing has been done.
I do not want to go over the whole ground again and repeat all the things that could be and have been said about the Fisheries Department. I would say that it is probably a mistake to be too sympathetic with that Department. If we are to blame in any way, it is that we have been, if anything, too lenient with the Minister. He informed us a few months ago that within a week the rules of the association would be laid on the Table of the House. I raised the question again a fortnight ago in the hope that some proposal would be forthcoming before the Recess. We are now about to adjourn for four months but there is no mention in the Appropriation Bill which we have just passed of the grant-in-aid which would be necessary to allocate to the sea fisheries association if it took shape in order to enable it to take up its work. Probably this time next year we will again be in the position in which we were this time twelve months, engaged in discussing what could and should be done for the organisation of Irish fisheries. There are other matters as well as the organisation of the industry which the Minister promised the House time and again to attend to, but nothing has been done. The Irish Press is full day after day with reports of raids by foreign trawlers coming into Irish waters. The Minister apparently does not know where he stands in regard to territorial waters or how he can provide efficient protection for our fishermen.
All parties have for years impressed on the Minister the importance of improving that protection by increasing the number of cruisers and by providing a number of motor boats, but we have had no indication that that matter has been seriously considered. The Minister is now in the position, as he said when the Estimate was going through, that he shares responsibility with the other Ministers and he is no longer in the position of saying "Blame the Minister for Finance. He will not give me more money.""I have," he said, "as much control over the Minister for Finance as the Minister for Finance has over me." The Minister has a duty to this House and to the Country. Deputies of all Parties have not spared themselves in dinning into his ears the necessity of providing protection for Irish fishing boats.
The other matter to which I want to refer is the question of territorial limits. The position in regard to dealing with British trawlers is apparently worse than it was under the British regime. At that time there were certain bye-laws which permitted Government Departments to take action against British trawlers, even outside the three-mile limit in certain restricted areas around our coast. In 1927 the Minister stated here that these bye-laws were practically useless, that the British Government paid no attention to them. Later on it transpired, in connection with the Waterford case, that the French also pay no attention to these bye-laws, or to our agreements or whatever international law defines the territorial limits of the Free State, because we have French boats coming across to protect us against their own fishermen. In this important matter the Minister promised the House again and again that action would be taken. Three months ago he told us that there was an international conference sitting on the question, and that some good might be expected from it. There has, however, been absolute silence on the question ever since. It would be interesting to know from the Minister exactly how much money has been collected in fines as a result of the work of the "Muirchu." It would be interesting to know, but I venture to say that the Minister is not in a position to be able to show, that that vessel is effective, not in raiding and arresting foreign crews, a work which it is doing to the best of its ability, but in seeing that summary fines are imposed on poachers such as would make them desist from their work. It is useless having a vessel trying to guard our fisheries unless we have a law which will enable us, when these people are captured, to have severe fines inflicted and, if necessary, to confiscate their nets.
There is also the question of Lough Foyle. This matter, like that of the territorial waters of the Free State, raises the question as to where exactly the Free State fishery bye-laws run in regard to territorial waters. This question is not merely one of sea fisheries but also of inland fisheries. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has attempted to quench discussion upon it by telling us that, even if Lough Foyle were adjudged to be wholly within Free State territory and that we had complete jurisdiction over it, there would be no justification for the present state of affairs. He has practically apologised and excused himself over the action of the fishermen, who are simply trying to hold what they are entitled to, to hold the ordinary rights which they have had to fish in these waters from time immemorial. The Minister put aside the question which was put up to him very strongly from these benches concerning people from the Six Counties coming and taking action by force against Free State nationals. He said that that question did not arise, and he gave the House to understand that he is prepared to accept that if the Foyle and Bann Fishing Company is prepared to originate an action in our courts. He also says that there is a several fishery there. On the 21st May, on the adjournment debate here, the Minister stated:
"We hold that there is a prima facie case established by long usage over many years in favour of the Irish Society and their lessees, the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company, but that that presumption is fast disappearing. There was a presumption, but that is fast disappearing, owing to the unaccountable reluctance of the Irish Society or their lessees to come into our courts, and if that continues much longer the presumption will have disappeared."
This time last year we were told that the matter was to have attention, and that the Government were taking action. Last March and April the Minister told us that negotiations were proceeding, that the matter was having the attention of the two Governments, but on the 21st May he comes along and tells us that it is a matter entirely for the courts, although he admits that neither he nor anyone else can induce the people from the Six Counties to come in and acknowledge the Free State Courts. In spite of that, he states that the question of territorial waters does not arise, and that, in fact, these people have a presumptive title to this several fishery although they refuse to come before the Free State Courts to prove their title. Finally, he stated that if the Foyle and Bann Company continued to ignore us, some day the worm will turn. How long will the present state of affairs continue? The "Irish Independent" on last Saturday told us that the disputed waters of the Lough would not be worked until the last week in June, and that by then matters must reach a crisis. It stated that the two boats which last year patrolled the Lough, and which got into trouble, have since been reduced to one, that it is almost impossible for the Company to find a crew for it, and that even if the crew is found, it will only be able to carry on its work of surveillance under a Civic Guard escort.
I have no knowledge of the position on the spot, but Donegal Deputies tell me that before a crisis occurs, and trouble breaks out, the Government should force these people to come into the Courts. They should not take up the attitude of waiting for the Foyle and Bann fishery people to come in, and of saying that if they proved their case they would stand behind them. Why would not the Government do in this instance as they did in the case of Lough Erne? Why not take the bull by the horns and say: "The question of your having a several fishery is a question which can only be held by our Courts, and we, as a Government, responsible for those waters and for seeing that our citizens get fair play by being allowed to fish there, will take the initiative, and take you into the Courts." If it is a matter for the Courts, and if negotiations have failed between the Governments, then let the Government show the local people that, even as regards the Courts, they are not going to allow a situation to be created in which the fishermen's rights will go by default. The fishermen, if the question goes into the Courts, will not be able to stand the cost, so that the Government should actively intervene in the matter.
