Each year since Fianna Fáil came into office we have had a different Minister in charge of Fisheries. We have had three shuffles of Ministers in a little over two years. When Fianna Fáil took office first, Deputy Ruttledge was placed in charge of Fisheries, and we had the Ministerial Press giving him a great boost. He came from a fishing area, and from a Gaeltacht area, we were told, and he was extremely suitable for the post which had been allotted to him, but after, I think, ten months, and having produced nothing, Deputy Ruttledge was translated to the Department of Justice, where, apparently, barrenness does not count, and the Department was handed over to Senator Connolly. Again we had the boosting—his knowledge of trade conditions generally, his special equipment through his experience in America of the pickled mackerel trade, and so on—and again, after a period of gestation similar to that of Deputy Ruttledge, and with like unproductivity, he was transferred to Forests and the doctor was sent for. Our agriculture was booming so much under the doctor's aegis that it was thought probable that he might be able to cure the ills of the fishing industry. The fishing industry of this country, as to about 75 per cent. of it, is situated along the western sea-coast—the Gaeltacht—and, in my opinion, it is closely allied with Gaeltacht Services, as they are known, those industries which have for many years been fostered by the various Governments of this country. I think it was an extremely foolish step to separate Fisheries from the Gaeltacht Services; and if there had to be a change, if Senator Connolly, Minister for Lands and Fisheries, as he was then, did not feel that he was getting anywhere with the fishing industry I, personally, would have much preferred that both Fisheries and Gaeltacht Services would go over rather than that they should be separated as they are under the present arrangement.
In 1927 or 1928, after very many long conversations in connection with the Gaeltacht Report, it was decided to put under one Minister the Land Commission, Fisheries and those Gaeltacht Services to which I have referred. The Land Commission was brought in, because, as everybody who knows the situation knows, our sea-coast population are not whole-time fishermen. They are, for the most part, half farmer, half fishermen, and we had to take cognisance of that. We had to take things as they were and make the best of them. It would have been more desirable, undoubtedly, if one could have enticed our people along the coast to take to fishing as a whole-time job, but, as I say, we had to make the best of matters as they were, because we could not get them to do that. We had to set out, therefore, to improve their lot, in so far as they were farmers and to equip them better as fishermen at the same time. That was the idea behind the formation of the Department of Lands and Fisheries in 1927 and 1928. The Land Commission entered into it because the only method of improving the farming operations of the people along the west coast especially, was by making their holdings something in the nature of economic holdings. That could be done by the operation of the Land Commission, by migration, by reclamation, and so on. I think the divorce of Fisheries from the Land Commission and from Gaeltacht Services is retrograde, and I think it should be reconsidered as soon as possible.
The Minister has not been very illuminating on his first appearance in the House in charge of Fisheries. He has given us very scant information, indeed, of the operations of the Department. Two or three years ago, the House will remember, great hopes were enkindled through the operations of the Sea Fisheries Association. That Association had been formed in 1930, and the Government of the day was prepared to put large sums of money at the disposal of the Association in order that they might be able to carry out efficiently the work they had taken in hands. The first directors—before they held the annual general meeting, and before members were enrolled—as was provided by the Act forming the Association, were appointed by me as Minister, and it was agreed from all sides of the House at the time, that I was very fortunate in getting men of the standing of those men and of their well-known business capacity to undertake the work they were undertaking, and to do so voluntarily. It was admitted by the person who was then the shadow Minister, but who, strange to say, has not appeared amongst the three shuffles, in charge of Fisheries— Deputy Derrig, who during all the years that Fianna Fáil were in the House before coming into office used to deal with Fisheries from the Opposition side—that these men were chosen strictly for their business capacity in one direction or another—their knowledge of finance, their knowledge of transport, or their knowledge of the fishing industry itself.
There were no politics brought into consideration in the choice. During the time that I had any experience of them they certainly worked most assiduously and devotedly, and they felt, at the same time, that they had full Government support. I gave them every support in my power, and they felt that any scheme they might bring forward, after due consideration, would get the full support of the Government. This, of course, was essential. It was essential if they were to make a success of the job they had undertaken, and these men were sufficiently big not to be associated with failure. They were men with reputations; they were men who, in their own private capacity, and in their own private business undertakings had been successful, and it was due to them to get the fullest Government support, because without that failure would have been inevitable. How has that support been given to them since Fianna Fáil took office? The Minister, in his opening statement, glossed over the figures in a very curt way, but anybody who looks at the Estimates for this year and at the Estimates for last year and compares them with the Estimates for 1932-33—the Estimates that were prepared during our last year of office —will not be surprised to find that one director after another resigned in disgust.
In the Estimate for 1932-33, as the Minister has pointed out, a sum of £53,000 was set aside for the General Development Grant-in-Aid. This sum was to be used by the Sea Fisheries Association for whatever purposes they thought fit. As is the way with Grants-in-Aid, they were not to be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Last year, in the first Estimate that Fianna Fáil as a Government prepared, this sum was reduced to £20,000; a cut from £53,000 to £20,000, that is a total cut of £33,000. Allowing for an increase of £9,000 on the Estimate for the supply of boats and gear, that was a net decrease of £24,000 in the development side of the Grant-in-Aid to the Fisheries Association. This year, in the 1934-5 Estimates, the Grant-in-Aid is still further reduced to £15,000—a further £5,000 lopped off. That means that, in the two years since Fianna Fáil took up office, the net decrease in the Grants-in-Aid to the Sea Fisheries Association amounts to £29,000. The Minister has not explained that away. He made some remarks about the utilisation of motor fishing boats which are in the hands of the Department, and which are to be equipped and used instead of big trawlers. That this would account in any sense for such a huge decrease I cannot believe. At any rate the decrease is there, and it conflicts very much with the promises and the statements of Fianna Fáil when in Opposition.
On the 1930 Estimates, Deputy Derrig spoke in connection with the Association, which had then been newly formed, and he appreciated entirely the difficult task which those men were undertaking. He said:
"It is going to be an extremely difficult task. It would be fatal if the Board, who have not the opportunities that they should have, and who cannot for a long time decide what actually their expenditure will be, in the opening stages of their work, should be held up for lack of finance."
He goes on:
"There is no use in asking them to undertake this work on a piecemeal scale and to dole out small amounts to them. We must hold the Minister for Finance to what he said in this House on the 2nd May, 1928."
He then went on to quote from the then Minister for Finance:
"If a well-thought-out scheme were propounded, it might be better to face a period of five, six or seven years during which considerable expenditure could be made to determine whether even with that large expenditure there would be considerable development in the fisheries."
He goes on:
"That is the opinion of the Minister for Finance. It would be interesting to know whether his Department and his officials live up to it. I have an idea that they do not see this development in the way that I think all Parties and Deputies would like to see it; that is, an industry on which a really genuine and big effort should be made, and upon which, as the Minister for Finance admitted, perhaps in a moment of enthusiasm, a well-thought-out scheme with considerable expenditure for five, six or seven years, would be really worth the money if we felt that that was necessary and was going to give results."
This Estimate which we are now considering does not show Fianna Fáil in office prepared to go on for anything like five, six or seven years supplying the Association with funds to enable them to carry out their work efficiently. I can also quote from the President, when he was speaking in Skibbereen on the 19th January, 1933, four or five days before the general election of 1933. It was indeed one of the rare occasions on which the President condescends to refer to fisheries at all. He said:
"The attempts that have been made up to the present to organise the Free State fisheries have been hopeless. The organisation which has been set up"—this is his reference to the Sea Fisheries Association which was working voluntarily and working well—"has been altogether unsatisfactory. Our view is that the fisheries should be organised to supply all our own needs."
I wonder what advance we have made towards supplying all our own needs since this Government took over control? Then he goes on:
"An attempt has been made to do this, but it would take too long to tell you how costly and how unsatisfactory it has been."
It would take too long, mind you, to say how costly and unsatisfactory it has been! As I said, he very rarely speaks about fisheries at all, and even then he grudged the few moments it would take to explain what he meant when he said the organisation was too costly and unsatisfactory. That is a very easy way out when you merely make a statement and have nothing behind to substantiate it. He concludes by telling us what Fianna Fáil is going to do:
"As far as we are concerned"— that is beautifully vague—"everything possible that we can do will be done."
This apparently is what his Government can do and will do—a reduction in the grant-in-aid to the Sea Fisheries Association of a net sum of £29,000 in their first couple of years. One would wonder if the Government has completely lost faith in any development of the fisheries. I must say it looks very like it from the Estimate. At any rate, to my mind they are making it impossible for the Sea Fisheries Association to achieve anything.
Last year Deputy O'Grady, the Parliamentary Secretary, who was in charge of this Estimate, explained in his opening statement a reduction of £1,000 under the heading—"Vocational Instruction, including Boat-Building"—by saying that the boat yard and the motor shop at Meevagh, County Donegal, were being handed over to the control and management of the Sea Fisheries Association. Deputies will remember that there used to be a practice in former years to provide £1,500 for this service. Last year £500 was provided. This year it has disappeared altogether in the Estimates. I can see no provision for a grant-in-aid to the Sea Fisheries Association. Has the Association taken over Meevagh, and how is it being financed? Are they financing it out of their depleted grants-in-aid? If they are, there is a still further reduction of £1,500 in the amount granted in 1932-3, bringing the total reduction since Fianna Fáil took up office to £30,500. That, I think, takes a good deal of explanation.
The Minister did not tell us anything about the Sea Fisheries Association. We do not know whether they have completely abandoned their trawling experiments. Will we be given any report as to these experiments, and what conclusions have been arrived at as a result of them? There should be no secret about these results. It is public money that was expended in financing the experiments, and it is due to the people that they should know whether or not the steam-trawling business is practically off our coasts. If negative results were reached, we ought to be told so, because a great many people think that, as we are living on an island surrounded by seas teeming with fish, as many people put it, therefore, we have all that is necessary for the establishment of a big fishing industry. It would be illuminating to have the report of the Sea Fisheries Association on their experiments, and to hear the conclusions at which they have arrived. The Parliamentary Secretary in referring last year to the trawling experiments, said that the greatest handicap to the development of trawling in the country was the absence of home-produced coal, that is, the absence of fuel supplies and the consequent heavy cost of fuel for coal-driven boats. He went on to say, as reported in column 2833, Volume 48 of the Parliamentary Debates:—
"Fortunately oil is now beginning to replace coal as fuel on this class of boat, and the Association which last year had to rely entirely on coal-driven boats, is at present arranging for trials with oil-driven trawlers which, if they are successful will, I anticipate, indicate the path of future development of our deep-sea fisheries."
What has been the result of these experiments? Have they been carried out at all? Have the oil-driven trawlers also proved uneconomic as far as this country is concerned? Have they had a fair trial? I do not consider that a trial over a season or two, in a highly speculative industry like fishing, is a fair trial. I believe you will want a trial extending over six or seven seasons in order to be able to arrive at any proper conclusion, as very many things enter into consideration.
The Sea Fisheries Association also had as one of their planks, and the Parliamentary Secretary referred to it last year, the development of our inland markets. They hoped eventually to come to the stage where Irish-caught fresh fish would be put on the tables in our inland towns. Has any advance been made in that direction? Are the vans, which the Association used to engage going round the country selling fish in various inland towns, still operating? If so, are they being supplied with Irish-caught fish? These are all questions that should be answered on an Estimate of this kind, especially in the absence of any report from the Association itself.
Then we were told last year that the Association had in hands the development in a bigger way of our shell-fishing industry. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Sea Fisheries Association had been engaged in organising the marketing of shell-fish —mussels, winkles and lobsters. Have they succeeded in expanding the market to any extent? I think the Minister, in the few words that he did say, has shown that they have not. He has pointed out that the tariffs on these prevented him from going ahead with the purification plant which I shall come to in a few moments. Of course, the fact is that tariffs have crippled the shell-fish industry. As a corollary to the tariffs, we have had bounties on shell-fish. The amount of red tape that, up to a few weeks ago, surrounded the payment of these bounties helped very materially in crippling the shell-fish industry. I know that it crippled for a long period the mussel fishery at Cromane in Kerry, and I have no doubt that similar conditions prevailed in Mornington and other places where that industry is carried on.
The purification plant has not been established during the year. We voted £5,000 for it last year and it has not been spent. The Minister said that it was because of the difficulties created by the tariffs. Last year—and I think the tariffs were on then—the Parliamentary Secretary said that all the steps had been taken for the provision of a purification plant and it was very well advanced. We were given to understand that we would have it established during the year. The tariffs cannot be the whole cause of the delay. It is very difficult to understand what the delay is. The money is there; it has been provided by the Oireachtas for a couple of years. If I remember rightly, the site had been decided on over two years ago. There was no difficulty about the plans. The plans were to be similar to those of the purification tank at Conway in North Wales. It is difficult to understand what is the delay about establishing this plant which is a vital necessity to those engaged in the mussel industry. The want of this plant has been a great deterrent to the development of that particular branch of the fishing industry. Our market for mussels is chiefly in North of England cities—Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, and so on. Frequently, through a suspicion of contamination, our mussels have been refused entry into those markets by the medical officer of health in those cities. That meant that we had to prohibit the export of mussels from those particular areas, thus causing very great hardship to those engaged in the industry. The erection of a purification tank would obviate that and remove any suspicion of contamination. For that reason, I hope that, during the coming year, the Minister will use every effort to have the plant established and in use.
With regard to protection, the same figure of £8,500 appears again this year. That was the ordinary sum that the upkeep of the "Muirchu" used to cost in any year. The Minister said that, though the work under the new Act for the protection of sea fisheries would be undoubtedly increased at the same time they hoped to keep the cost to the same figure. He avoided saying whether we could have any more boats. I take it, unless he scraps the "Muirchu" and goes in for some motor boats, there will be no other boat than the "Muirchu." I think he would be very ill-advised to go in for small motor boats for fishery protection. When you come to fishery protection and when you see the sum that is down in the Estimates, £8,500, it made me feel that I wish I had time to go back to the debates after the time when Fianna Fáil entered the Dáil, and even before that to the speeches we heard from the Labour Benches and to read the kind of criticism that was used then about our fishery control measures.
Everyone who was in the House at that time can remember the caustic criticism which the Government got for their neglect in providing adequate fishery patrol. Many will remember the somewhat idiotic jokes that used to be made about the "Muirchu," about its speed and so on, by Deputies who did not know the first thing about the speed of the "Muirchu." I did not have time to look up all the debates. I am perfectly certain that if I did I would alight upon most of the jokes that were then made by Deputies. I will just quote from two or three of these speeches made on the Vote on the Fisheries Estimate for 1930. At that time Deputy Goulding, for instance, said:—
"This question of the protection of our fisheries is getting a hardy annual. In fact, according to Deputy Law, it is more than an annual, as he evidently raised the question 27 years ago and the question to-day is the same as it was then." (It is now 31 years ago). "Every year the Minister, when replying at the end of the debate, has told the House that the matter was receiving consideration. It is always receiving consideration, but never gets beyond that stage."
And then goes on to say—
"Let us consider the present position. The ‘Muirchu' is off Dunmore and the poachers are up around Donegal and Galway. These people keep each other informed and they know where the patrol boat is. We spend £8,000 and the men on the boat do their very best to earn the money but we are not treating them fairly."
Is the position any different to-day from what it was in 1930, when Deputy Goulding made that speech? And Deputy Corish in the same debate said:—
"I would like to refer to a matter that has been mentioned by other Deputies, and that is the better patrolling of our shores. In the constituency of Wexford that I represent, we suffer very much from foreign trawlers. There is a continual number of trawling vessels there from France, England and Scotland, with the result that the fishing fleet in Wexford town has decreased considerably within the last ten or 20 years. I know quite well it is almost impossible for the Minister to give this matter the attention it deserves and warrants, because of the fact that he has not sufficient money at his disposal to enable him to secure further patrol boats. As a matter of fact, the one he has is too slow to get out of her own way—she is absolutely useless. I believe, if anything is to be done to protect the fisheries, the Minister will want to make strong recommendations to the Executive Council and to the Minister for Finance to provide more patrol vessels."
I wonder is Wexford now free from the depredations of these trawlers. There is one further quotation from Deputy Kilroy in the same strain and there is one in Irish. That is worth referring to because it goes further than any of the others. It is from Deputy O Buachalla. Here is what Deputy Domhnall Ua Buachalla said on this Estimate in 1930:—
"Maidir le ceist na n-iascairí, sé mo bharúil nach bhfuil aon intinn ag an Rialtas ná ag an Aire rud ar bith do dhéanamh chun ár n-iascairí do chosaint ó sna creachadóirí iasachta a thagann isteach anso chun ár n-iasc do thógaint leo."
And further on in his speech he asks:—
"Má táimíd saor, mar adeir sé, cé'n chúis nach bhfuil sé in ár gcumas na hiascaireachtaí do chosaint?"
Then Deputy Domhnall Ua Buachalla goes on to ask why should we not fire shots at these foreign trawlers who are poaching on our fisheries. Deputy Ua Buachalla should be made an admiral of the fleet instead of being made Governor-General. At any rate, the provision in the Estimates is the same this year as it was last year and the year before that. Apparently, no steps are to be taken to provide any further control than we had in the past. During the year we had a Fishery Protection Bill introduced here and it was boosted quite a lot. That Bill was going to do great things when it was before the House. During the discussion on last year's Estimate as the Parliamentary Secretary will remember, he told us he was bringing forward that Bill and I advised him not to bring it forward until he had first got a guarantee from the Government that he would get sufficient in the way of patrol services to enforce its provisions. During the Estimate last year I repeated that and I said the same during the various stages of the Bill when it was going through this House.
The Minister—a very innocent man he must be—thought that the Bill itself with its very drastic provisions for fines in the case of a skipper who was caught poaching would be a sufficient deterrent. Will he tell us now if he has found it so? Have the skippers of those foreign trawlers been so frightened at the passage of that Bill into law that they thought discretion the better part of valour and have given our coasts a wide berth? Does not everybody know that I was right when I told the Minister that the passage of the Bill would not be worth the paper on which it was written unless he has a sufficient patrol service?
We see in the Press from day to day complaints about the depredations by foreign trawlers in various parts of our coast. I am sufficiently hardened to those complaints to take them as being somewhat exaggerated. They mostly are exaggerated. But, undoubtedly, as in the past, a great deal of harm is being done by foreign trawlers and the new Fishery Protection Act has done nothing whatever to stop that. It never will until you have a patrol service sufficiently efficient to enforce the provisions of that Act. I will not weary the House reading some of the complaints that are being made about this matter. But I noticed in the Press the other day a report of a meeting of the Moville Fishery Conservators. It was published in last Friday's papers. In that meeting it appeared there was a big invasion by trawlers on the coast of Donegal and one of those at the meeting talked of how this matter should be dealt with. Some of the statements were rather amusing. Mr. Patrick O'Doherty said that for the previous ten days there were half a dozen of these trawlers within a mile and a half of the shore at Malin Head and the local fishermen since February last caught nothing whatever. Here is a tit-bit from his speech:—
"A Donegal fisherman told me yesterday that he had neither tea nor sugar, and just then two trawlers were operating off the coast."
These are the kind of things that make one smile.
Overstating the case does not get you any distance and the case that has been put up about the invasion by foreign trawlers has always been overstated. I do not intend at all to overstate the case. Unfortunately, there is a grievance. There is some harm being done and there is a considerable invasion of the territorial waters but not quite as bad as is stated in these complaints. I would not like that the Minister should get panicky; and he appears to have got panicky, if one is to judge by what has appeared in the Press in the last few days and if these reports are correct. The Press reports state that the officer in charge of the "Muirchu" had received orders to enforce the provisions of the "Orders to Stop" regulations No. 39.
This order to halt comes under the "Sea Fishing Boats Ordered to Stop" regulations. The regulations give the instructions necessary to carry out strictly the provisions of the Act. For the enlightenment of Deputies that means that if the sea fishery officer in charge of the "Muirchu" at any time thinks a boat is within our territorial limits, he will call on her to halt. If she does not halt, he is to fire a blank shot as a signal, and if she then refuses to halt, he will fire at or into her. I think that is a panicky step if it has been taken by the Minister. I do not know whether he has taken it, but the paper says he has.
The new Sea Fisheries Protection Act does not define our territorial limits any more than they have ever been defined; that is, with reference to the generally accepted territorial waters. You are putting the sea fishery officer into an extraordinarily difficult position. Inside what line is he to call on these trawlers to halt and to fire on them if they refuse to do so? You will remember there are various lines which have been to some extent recognised as territorial waters here, or at least there were extra territorial areas where we used to exercise the right to prevent fishing boats operating. You have one off Dungarvan which extends some 12 miles from our coast. There was an extra territorial bye-law made during the British regime, and effective against the British boats only. It could not be made operative against Belgian, French or German trawlers because of international law. Even in spite of its vagueness it would not allow the British to prevent these foreign trawlers from operating well inside that line. They did attempt to remedy the position by seizing the fish if they were landed in the British Isles in the following couple of months. In fact the bye-law was only effective against British trawlers. Is the sea fishery officer to act on that line or have a new line three miles from the coast mapped out for him and only inside which he will operate?
I would like to know whether the Government has given full consideration to the possible consequences of what this order might mean. Unfortunately, at the present moment the Captain of the Muirchu is seriously ill, so ill that his doctor will probably never let him resume duties on the boat. He has had a very long experience in sea fishery patrol work and when given an order of that kind by the Government he could be relied on to act with very great discretion. He is a man used to command. The man in charge of the vessel at the moment is the First Officer, a very efficient man and a very good navigator, but he is a man accustomed to obey and anyone who knows anything about marine services is aware that there is a very literal obedience, a very strict obedience, at sea. I am afraid that that officer, getting any such order from the Department, will take it too literally and the Government may find itself in a very humiliating position; that is, if a tragedy occurs. You can conceive a shot being fired at one of these trawlers, especially in a doubtful position as to whether it is intra-territorial at all. Somebody may be killed. It may be the cook, for instance, who never pulled a trawl, or it may be somebody else. It does not matter who is killed. There may be a dispute as to whether the boat was inside our limits and the Government may be in the humiliating position of making diplomatic apologies and the rest of it. I think the Minister should reconsider that order and very definite and thorough instructions should be given to the First Officer in charge of the vessel before he takes any drastic steps, as he is entitled to do, under the regulations. I stress the fact that many of these reports about trawling are naturally exaggerated and there is no need to get panicky about them. It is a matter in which the Government should tread very warily, because of possible complications.
Fishery protection is essentially a very expensive business, but if we have any faith in the development of our fisheries, if the Government has not lost all hope that the Sea Fisheries Association is going to achieve anything, then it ought to be worth while to protect our fishermen and our territorial waters with an efficient control service. Speaking on the Estimates last year, I indicated what I thought would be the only type of patrol service worth the money. I do not at all agree with statements made in the past by Deputies, by persons speaking at the Moville Board or newspaper articles on the subject of fishery protection. I do not agree that the small motor boat would be efficient for this service, no matter how many of them you have. They might be effective as against French lobster boats, but they would be absolutely worthless and a waste of money so far as dealing with steam trawlers is concerned. Everybody knows it is the steam trawler does the harm. The lobster boat will take a haul of fish, but that is your only loss. Trawling in-shore waters may mean far more than a mere haul of fish. Very often trawlers in the in-shore beds destroy immature fish. That is the great harm of trawling near the coast. That was why bye-laws were made for Dungarvan Harbour preventing trawlers from fishing within the 12-mile limit. The trawlers do the harm. Small motor boats would be useless for dealing with the menace. You must have boats which can go to sea in any weather, just as a trawler can. Anyone who knows trawlers is aware that it is only extremely bad weather will make them lie up.
It would be necessary to have at least two boats—three boats would be the ideal thing—as nearly resembling trawlers as possible, but with three or four knots an hour more speed than the ordinary trawler in order to protect the coast more efficiently. I believe it will cost more money, but I do not think that money will be begrudged, that is, if the Government still have some hope of fishery development through the operations of the Sea Fisheries Association. If they have not, of course, we might as well face the music and save ourselves the expense. The Minister did answer a few points I intended to raise on inland fisheries. As to the increased power of the Conservators, I thought that was entirely because of the Erne Fisheries decision, and, also, the necessity for providing for the Ballyshannon Board. I see that Limerick is also to continue because of the loss of the operation of the hydraulic scheme.
There was one question I raised last year, but which was not answered because the debate was closured in the small hours of the morning. Many complaints of a particular kind were made at that time, but, possibly, the matter about which they were made does not exist now. I used to have complaints from many boards of conservators to the effect that it was waste of money on their part to employ bailiffs, and to institute prosecutions, because the normal attitude of the Government was to remit or reduce fines, on memorial, so that they ceased to act as a deterrent. I have not heard any of these complaints in recent months, so that I am hoping there is no longer any foundation for them. I am sure the Minister has been informed by his Department of the procedure that had been arrived at in the working of the Fishery Department so far. I am sure he knows that the prerogative for the removal of fines, or the reduction of fines, rested with the Executive Council or the Minister for Justice. On a few occasions, in the early days, the Minister for Justice acted in the matter of the remission or removal of fines without consultation with the Fisheries Department. We got it established, at an early date, that no action whatever should be taken on a matter of that kind by the Minister for Justice except entirely upon the advice of the Minister for Fisheries. I think that rule should still prevail; that the Minister for Justice should not reduce fines without consulting the Minister for Agriculture now, and that the Minister for Agriculture should insist that his word should go. On that question of the remission of fines I think it would be well that people should not get into their heads the idea that they can carry on these activities with impunity. I never worried so much about the odd man who went out with the rod and line and who did not happen to have a licence. If he is a genuine angler, and throws his line into the water, it does not matter so much, though, of course, he is breaking the law and if caught would be fined. It would not matter so much about him, but the man who stroke-hauls with an instrument that wounds more fish than he hauls out, should be severely dealt with. It was these persons I was particularly aiming at, and the Fisheries Act, 1924-25, undoubtedly provided sufficient deterrents in the penalties imposed to make it rather unprofitable for the poacher. Not only did we increase the fine, but we also made it impossible for him to get rid of his catch. I think that policy should be continued as stringently as it was in our time.
I believe the Government think the tourist industry in this country is worth while. I think it is worth while. The chief attraction we have for tourists in this country is our angling attraction, and it would be a great pity if the suspicion got abroad amongst the people who come to our country to fish, that the rivers were free for everyone to do what they liked, and that there would be nothing left for them to get. If that suspicion got abroad our tourist centres would suffer accordingly. Therefore, I think the Minister should see to it that the Fishery laws are stringently imposed, especially in the spawning season, and that fines are not so reduced as to prevent them acting as a deterrent.
There is one last point I want to make in connection with inland fisheries; it was mentioned to me before I left office. I thought then it was too early to change the provisions of the 1925 Act. The matter I have in mind is in connection with a special licence for sea-trout or white trout or salmon trout, as they are called; but they all mean the same thing. In the Schedule to the 1925 Act the various amounts to be paid for licences for rods and nets are set out. But the only rod mentioned is the salmon rod. If a man wants to take out a licence to fish for sea-trout he has to take out a salmon licence. I think it would be well now, nine years after the 1925 Act was passed, to consider whether it would not be worth while to issue a sea-trout licence for, say, £1. There would be many brown trout anglers who would pay £1 in order to be allowed to fish for sea-trout, while they would baulk at taking out a £2 licence. I think those people should be encouraged. Many of them are handicapped at the moment. It is well known that sea-trout will very often take a brown trout fly. I have seen sea-trout take the ordinary worm that a youngster would use in a stream. If brown trout fishermen now take sea-trout they would be liable to be summoned. I think it would be worth the Minister's while to contemplate issuing a special licence for sea-trout at £1 if there is any demand for it. I believe that there would be such demand and I commend that matter to the Minister.
