Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Fisheries. – Dáil Éireann (8th Dáil) – Tuesday, 21 Apr 1936

Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Fisheries.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

Go ndeantar suim ná raghaidh thar £29,975 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1937, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Iascach Mara agus Intíre, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £29,975 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

It will be noted that the "Administration" items of this Estimate, namely, those comprised in sub-heads A, B, C and D, are virtually the same in amount as they were 12 months ago. They call for no special comment by me, save perhaps a warning that should there be enacted during the present financial year a rather comprehensive measure dealing with our inland fisheries, the preliminary drafting of which is now in hands, it may be necessary to expand somewhat the administrative and technical staffs for this Service with a consequential increase in the provision now made under these four sub-heads.

Coming to the heading of "Sea Fisheries," I think it will probably be more convenient for all if I deal conjointly with it and the heading "Sea Fisheries Association of Saorstát Eireann," that is to say, with the items covered by the four E sub-heads and the four G sub-heads, respectively. The amount set down at E (1) is less by £30 than the previous year's figure, because in the meantime the Gárda Síochána have found it possible to take over the collection of fishery statistics at a few more of the points where heretofore small annual fees had been paid to local persons for such work. Sub-head E (2) is unaltered from last year.

From the figures set out at sub-head E (3), it will be observed that the Master and officers of the fishery cruiser have now been placed on an established and pensionable basis, a status long enjoyed by those engaged upon duties of a similar character elsewhere. The reduction of £250 in the provision for stores and maintenance is explained by the fact that during 1935 this vessel underwent an exceptionally heavy overhaul, and the figure of £3,750 is considered to be adequate for the coming year. It is difficult to measure closely the requirements for the item General Expenses, which relates mainly to the operation of the Sea Fisheries Protection Act, 1933, as expenditure upon it is liable to vary considerably one year with another; but in view of actual outlay made during the past couple of seasons, the provision has been reduced from £500 to £200 this year.

I may say that since taking over the fisheries services just two years ago there is perhaps no subject upon which so much advice has been tendered to me by correspondents as this one of sea fisheries protection. There are those who hold that the work can be done effectively only by fishery cruisers of adequate tonnage, and there are others who believe that the solution of the problem would lie in the provision of a number of small, fast craft located at various points on the coast. At all events everyone is satisfied that the effective patrol of our entire coastline by one cruiser is not possible. The present vessel, which has been in commission since 1908, although well preserved, is past her first youth, and any delay that has arisen in giving effect to the intention already expressed by me more than once of providing a second cruiser is to be explained by administrative considerations as to the best method of dealing with the matter. Should we, for instance, dispose of the "Muirchu" and replace her by one or two new vessels, or should we continue her in commission for some time longer and charter a second vessel as her consort on patrol duty while we are planning a permanent arrangement for the efficient policing of our exclusive fishery limits? I incline to the latter alternative, and am having steps taken accordingly.

Turning now to sub-head G (1), I have to explain that when the Sea Fisheries Association began to function in April, 1931, an understanding was reached between the directors of that body and the Minister for Finance whereby a grant-in-aid of not less than £10,000 per annum was to be provided by the Exchequer towards the administrative expenses of the Association during the first five years. The amount was raised to £11,000 last year in view of certain exceptional expenditure which was anticipated but which did not in fact arise. The provision for the coming year has been set down at £10,000, but the directors have been notified that the Association must gradually become self-supporting in this matter of administrative expenses, and that this Exchequer grant will henceforth be reduced somewhat year by year.

I should like to deal with sub-heads G.2 and G.3 together, because in practice the operations of the Association that are financed from moneys provided on these sub-heads are, to a considerable extent, interwoven. It will be recalled that the primary objective in setting up this body was to provide a means of enabling our fishermen to obtain boats and gear on terms other than those of repayment by fixed half-yearly instalments guaranteed by substantial sureties who, in view of the unsatisfactory results to such persons under the former loan system, would not readily be forthcoming. The hire-purchase system of the Association is essentially one in which the fisherman works the chattel hired to him under the guidance of the Association to the extent that his catch is marketed for him, and from the proceeds a certain share is retained by the Association in liquidation of the member's liability. It is undoubtedly the case that, owing to the Association having started work at a time when the herring shoals had (we all hope temporarily) deserted our shores, the returns from hire purchase transactions have not been as good as was expected. If, however, Deputies will turn to sub-head H of this Estimate, that is "Appropriations-in-Aid," they will observe that the estimated repayments by the Association have risen from £3,000 last year to £4,500 now. That this is a reliable and firm estimate is shown by the fact that the figures furnished in similar circumstances in respect of the preceding two years have, on each occasion, been somewhat exceeded in practice.

One feels, therefore, that the Association is justifying its existence. Of course, these results by way of repayments from hire-purchasers have only been made possible by the development of marketing operations by means of the funds made available to the Association at sub-head G. 2. This provision which has been reduced from £12,000 to £10,000 must of necessity be a gradually diminishing one, as, while preliminary expenses upon the opening up of new centres and the initiation of schemes are a fair charge upon public funds, such efforts must aim at being commercially sound and in that way become a lessening charge year by year upon the Exchequer. An increase of £2,000 is shown in the figure at G.3 for repayable advances, so as to enable the Association to discharge certain commitments to members in respect of boats and gear.

Under sub-head G.4 provision is made for repayable advances in connection with structural works of development. One of these is the construction near Gortnasate, County Donegal, of a storage pond for lobsters and crayfish which, when in operation, will enable the Association to obtain for members resident in that area much better returns for their shellfish than, owing to the absence of organised marketing, has been possible heretofore. Another work long in contemplation which, originally, had been marked for financing from this source, was the setting up of a cleansing tank for mussels. This project has been so long under discussion that one can easily understand the note of discontent that is being sounded by those concerned in the industry at the delay that has occurred.

The explanation of that delay is simply one of practicability, and, after consultation with those who have specialised on the subject, I am convinced that the only effective method of dealing with this matter would be to have the mussels taken over from the gathers by the Sea Fisheries Association, by whom the shellfish would be cleansed or purified at a centrally situated and properly equipped plant before being despatched to market. The plans and the bills of quantities have been prepared for such a plant, a site has been on offer, and there only remains the question whether our mussels, when duly certified to have undergone such cleansing process, will be assured of entry to those markets from which, on the plea of being a danger to public health, they have been debarred. The process of convincing the medical officers of health at many of these centres on this point must be a gradual one; but, obviously, until an assured outlet for the mussels after the cleansing process has been obtained, those charged with the care of Exchequer funds will naturally be slow to provide the money required for erecting such a plant. It only remains to say that negotiations are still actively proceeding.

Before leaving this subject of our sea fisheries I should like to say that while we have gone through a bad spell for the herring fishery, there are definite signs of a revival, and my Department is doing everything possible to ensure that markets shall be available if and when the shoals once more materialise on our coasts. As regards the mackerel fisheries, once the mainstay of our fishermen in the south-west, it is unfortunately the fact that even if this fish returned to our waters in anything like the quantities that prevailed in former years, the difficulty of marketing the cured product would be immense. Owing to changes in public taste in the United States of America, the demand for that commodity has fallen off in what had been our principal market. With a view to developing other markets, a bounty was paid for a limited period last year upon consignments of pickled mackerel sent to countries other than Great Britain (which does not buy that commodity), and a certain temporary fillip was undoubtedly given to the industry, payment of the bounty having been made conditional upon the guarantee of a minimum price to the fishermen whose mackerel was taken for curing. The results, however, were not conclusive; and I am favourably considering an application received for a renewal of the arrangement by way of further trial.

As regards the demersal or trawl fisheries, I should like to record my opinion that there is here a very fine opportunity for properly utilised commercial capital. The home market, now supplied from cross-Channel sources, is a very valuable one open to exploitation by a well-organised Saorstát trawling company. I recommend this thought to the consideration of our capitalists.

With regard to the inland fisheries, the expenditure proposed on them is set out under the four "F" sub-heads. At F.1 an increase of £850 is shown over last year's provision, of which £600 represents an addition to the aggregate amount provided for issue by way of grants to boards of conservators, some of whom have been in grave difficulties during the first couple of seasons as regards the maintenance of protection as their areas. The other £250 of the increase is in respect of the payments to local bodies whose income from rates has been adversely affected beyond a certain point by reason of the payment direct to boards of conservators of so much of the rates as are assessed upon fisheries. At sub-head F.2 a reduction of £120 is shown as compared with last year. It has been decided to discontinue the arrangement under which a fish hatchery at Blackcastle, on the Boyne, had for some years been subsidised from State funds, experience having shown that this hatchery was not suitable for the supply of ova to Saorstát rivers generally, as had been in contemplation when the subsidy arrangement was made. The other sub-heads, F.3 and F.4, show no change as compared with the previous year's figures.

Deputies will, no doubt, expect me to say something about the report presented by the Inland Fisheries Commission some 12 months ago and as to my intentions, by way of legislative proposals, following upon consideration of that document. These proposals which, as I stated earlier, are now at the stage of preliminary drafting, have not yet been formulated to a degree that would permit of my referring to them in anything but general terms. When speaking on the subject here last July, I expressed the hope of introducing such proposals within a year from then, and I now think that my intentions in that respect will be duly fulfilled.

The report itself was circulated quite recently, and most Deputies have, no doubt, read it through, although perhaps many of them may not yet have found time for a critical examination of its contents. It will probably suffice for our present purpose if I call attention to the summary of recommendations which appears at page 47 of the report. It will be noted that the major recommendations include the setting up of a body corporate to be known as "The Central Fishery Board," by whom the fisheries generally (with the exception of private angling rights in the upper waters) would be worked and administered, by whom the salmon, trout and eel would be captured and marketed, and by whom a predetermined number of salmon would each year be permitted to reach the upper waters for the provision of angling sport and for the maintenance of stock. That Central Board would normally operate by means of trap weirs, one of which would be erected on each salmon river. As a corollary, all netting for salmon, trout or eels except such as might be undertaken in exceptional circumstances by the Central Board would be abolished. Incidentally the boards of conservators would be abolished and replaced by local managers acting under the Central Board and assisted in each case by an advisory committee constituted differently from the present boards. Furthermore, all estuarine salmon and trout fisheries, all eel fisheries, and all fishing weirs would be taken over and administered by the Central Board.

While, as I have already stated, I am not now in a position to do more than discuss the question in very general terms, I should like it to be known that I find myself unable to accept the proposal for the abolition of all netting. It is undoubtedly the case that some degree of restriction upon netting as now practised is necessary, but anything done in that direction will be designed so as to inflict the minimum of hardship on those concerned. I am not satisfied that this scheme for the general use of trap weirs on our salmon rivers is practicable. At any rate, unless and until some years' experience had been had of the working of such a trap weir it would be very unwise to commit ourselves to any such system. As regards the proposed Central Board, my view is that it would not be desirable to have in existence a body with administrative functions while at the same time bearing the responsibility of developing fisheries on a commercial basis. At any rate I do not feel that the supersession of the present Board of Conservators by local managers (with the aid of advisory committees) working under the proposed Central Board would be an improvement on the present system; and it follows that there would really be available none of the work or responsibilities which the report envisages as being allocated to the Central Board.

There are a great many relatively minor but really important matters dealt with in this report, many of which I would propose to have reflected in the forthcoming Bill. These matters. together with the question of acquisition by the State of certain estuarine and weir fisheries, are, however, all at the moment the subject of examination by means of inter-Departmental discussions, and I feel that Deputies will agree with me in suggesting that it would be more appropriate to refrain from any detailed or definite statement upon them until I come to introduce the contemplated legislation.

Mr. O'Neill

I beg to move the motion standing in the name of Deputy Fionán O Loingsigh—that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. A few minutes ago, just before I came into the House, I heard a discussion in the Lobby amongst certain members of the Dáil. The query was put as to whether this was to be the last Estimate that would ever come before this House for fisheries. The reason suggested was that fisheries had ceased to exist in this country and that therefore an Estimate was no longer necessary. This applies to the whole fishing Vote, but my remarks will be directed more or less to the particular matter of sea fisheries in this country. I sympathise with the Minister in having to bring in an Estimate like this, because it is a matter about which I am afraid he knows very little and of which he has very little practical experience. I know the Minister has little experience of fisheries and of fishing people. Fishing is a highly specialised form of knowledge, and I do not think the Minister is qualified to administer the Department dealing with it. Another reason why I submit this Estimate should be referred back is because of the amount of money in the Vote. The amount is altogether inadequate, and it is out of proportion altogether to the importance of the subject. Just think, for an industry which should be second next in importance to agriculture in this country we have an Estimate for the measly sum of less than £45,000. For a Department which is supposed to be run adequately and satisfactorily this is grossly inadequate.

The history of the sea fishery industry in this country has been rather a melancholy one, and whatever remarks I may address to the Minister with reference to the present inept condition of this industry would apply with equal force to the Departments that administered this industry in the past. Going back to many years before the Free State was ever set up, there is no doubt but the sea fisheries of this country were in a declining condition. I remember well—taking my mind back nearly 40 years to the time when I was a boy— that as far as the Association of the Irish people and the Irish fisheries were concerned, the fisheries were exploited more or less in the interests of the foreigners who came to our shores. I was brought up in a fishing atmosphere, but the fisheries were run at great profit to Manxmen, to the people of Lowestoft, Scotland, and to a great extent also to the advantage of Frenchmen.

We have now arrived at the position that we are able to do what we like in the matter of our own fisheries. We can do what we like with our own money. We can set up a board that will deal with this important subject in a more sympathetic manner than that in which it has been treated up to the present. Last year this Estimate went through without any discussion whatever. The fisheries were thought of such little importance that this Vote was bundled up with other Votes and passed through here almost without a word. For that reason it is no surprise that to-day we should find people in the Lobby here wondering whether this was going to be the last Estimate ever brought in for fisheries. Since Fianna Fáil came into power fishing has ceased to exist. At one time certain ports were valuable from the point of view of the landing of fish and the landing of the general wealth extracted from the sea. As I have already pointed out, a little over £44,000 is altogether inadequate as an Estimate for fisheries. The Minister has just been telling us that the Sea Fisheries Association must look forward to the time when certain moneys will no longer be available to them and when certain developments must take place so as to make the industry self-supporting. I think that in no country in the world are fisheries self-supporting. It is an industry that must always be subsidised. It must be subsidised with a view to keeping the boats and the gear of the fishermen in an adequately effective condition.

The Sea Fisheries Association has done, I must admit, very important work. It has addressed itself particularly towards developing amongst the Irish people a taste for fish. It has been stated that one of the reasons for the falling off in this great industry is that the Irish people will not eat fish. Now that we are cut off from the British markets and have to jump a high tariff wall, our outlets for fishing are very small. At the same time the amount of fish our fishermen are able to get is very little and is not at all adequate to meet the wants of the country. It is an extraordinary thing that with the large coastline that we have the imports of fish last year more than doubled the value of the fish landed by our own boats. If I am not mistaken, I think the imports of fish amounted to £300,000, and the full value of the fish landed by our own boats was something like £146,000. In addition to this I find that in the last two years the number of men engaged in fishing has fallen from 12,000 to 10,000—that is a falling-off of 2,000 men in two years. That certainly shows that the industry is declining and that the sea has less attraction for our fishermen. In considering a subject like this the first thing that enters into a person's mind is the inadequacy of the protection afforded to our fishermen. The Minister has admitted for the first time and rightly admitted, that the Muirchu is altogether out of date and ineffective for the protection of our fisheries. That boat is manned by a very excellent crew but the coast line of Ireland is altogether too large a sphere for one boat to be able to control in a proper way the activities of foreign trawlers.

Various ideas have been put forward for the protection of our shores. Aeroplanes, small motor boats, and so on have been mentioned. I agree with the Minister that such things are not practical. What we want is the class of boat that will stop at sea under the same conditions as one of the modern trawlers. Such a vessel would need to be well engined and strongly built. I should like to give the Minister a practical suggestion; we might consider the provision of at least three boats, one to patrol the south coast, another to patrol the east coast, and another to patrol the west coast. They should be boats of the type employed during the War as mine sweepers; the class of boat that would stop at sea in any class of weather, equipped with wireless and carrying a crew of from ten to 20 men. Some time ago a suggestion was made with regard to the creation of the nucleus of an Irish navy. That idea was laughed at by some people, but I think it might become a practical idea if we could consider the formation of a small fleet of three or four boats that would give adequate protection to our shores, and be able to keep off the marauding trawlers that are still coming in night and day, fishing under the very noses of our fishermen, and depriving them of the living to which they are entitled. Apart from the harm that these foreign trawlers do, there is the trouble of getting any inshore fish. These boats scrape the spawning beds, particularly on the south coast, and inshore fish are very difficult to get now. The white fish that used to be so abundant along the coast are very difficult to get now, and most of the fish that we in the south of Ireland get is imported from Milford or Grimsby. The irony of the thing is that most of that fish has been caught along the coast between the Fastnet and the Tuskar Rock. One of those is in the Minister's constituency and the other is in mine, so we should have a sort of common interest in this matter.

A few years ago a Bill was introduced by the Minister and passed into law. It was supposed to afford adequate protection and improve the facilities we already had for keeping those trawlers outside the three-mile limit. I do not think that this law has been in any way effective or has in any way helped to decrease the destruction done by these trawlers, so I would again emphasise the necessity for doing something with regard to those trawlers and doing it in a very decisive way. The Minister has suggested that there is an opening for the investment of private capital in a trawling company that would provide fish for our Irish market. I do not think that is feasible at the moment, and I will go back to another point which is very important. Owing to the decline infishing, we have lost our fishing instinct to a terrible extent, and the young men along the harbours of our coast who should be trained up in the ways of their fathers in the fishing line have been forced to go to other parts of the world to earn the living which they could not get at home. I have already spoken of the decline even in the last two years of about 2,000 in the number following the sea as a vocation.

The Minister perhaps may ask me where we are going to get the necessary money. I believe that nothing can be done with regard to the reestablishment of fishing as an adequate industry in this country unless it is done in a big way and a bold way, and to do that you must get money. I would consider that a yearly sum of any less than £250,000 would be no use. That could be used for the development of the protection which I have outlined, and funds should also be given to the Sea Fisheries Association to develop their ideas with regard to providing nets, gear and boats. Something must also be done with regard to training our young men to get back into fishing habits. A lot of them have gone away and joined the British Mercantile Marine. Some of them have gone to England to do railway work and other work of that kind away from the sea altogether. There is a population on our coasts to which this industry of fishing should be a valuable one. This problem should be tackled in a big way. We have been tinkering with it in such a manner that the industry is practically extinct. No matter how well administered the Fisheries Department may be, and no matter how active and enthusiastic the members of the Sea Fisheries Association may be, they cannot do anything tramelled as they are by lack of funds. Where are we going to get the money? That is a practical point, and it is not for me to make any suggestion to the Minister. I accept no administrative responsibility for the provision of this money, but if we look back at some of the other estimates we will see how the expenditure and personnel of other Departments have been increased. In the personnel of the Revenue Department there has been an increase of 500 since 1931-2 and that one Department alone is costing over £100,000 extra. If you go down through the list of estimates you will find other Departments in which there has been increased expenditure on a similar scale. It may be warranted by circumstances; it is certainly warranted or rather excused by a policy of which we cannot approve, and that brings us back again to the existence of the economic war.

On an Estimate such as this I suppose we cannot enter into a discussion on the economic war, but it does bear on fisheries as well as it bears on agriculture, because our best market for fish, when we had a really good fishing industry in this country, was found in London, Leeds, and the other big cities in England where we sent our mackerel. The Minister says that mackerel have now ceased to attract fish eaters, but I think there is always a market for mackerel if they can be caught. There is also a market for herrings and any other sort of fish you can catch in this country. Even the rough fish that we will not eat here would always find a market in England if we had not the senseless tariffs caused by the senseless policy of the Government. The Fisheries Department must be up-to-date. Boats that were effective some ten years ago or more would be absolutely out-of-date in this year, and for that reason a Department like the Fisheries Department should be kept thoroughly up-to-date. You must provide new methods, and you must train the young men to take up fishing. There is a market for fish, and all we want is a better understanding with our neighbour. With regard to the three-mile limit, which is the most we can adequately patrol at the present time and outside of which we have no control over those trawlers, I think that by a proper understanding with our neighbour in Britain an arrangement could be arrived at by which the territorial limit with regard to fishing could be adjusted, and we could have a sort of convention which would help both our neighbour and ourselves to make more use of the fishing laws. There should be a little give and take and a better understanding with regard to the protection of fishing grounds within the three-mile limit, or whatever limit may be fixed. Our coast bye-laws also require revision. I suggest to the Minister that they are very mixed up. There are too many of them, and they are too complicated in certain ways. This is a matter which I have often asked the Department to turn its attention to. I suggest that these bye-laws relating to fishing, and to trawling particularly, should be codified and simplified. I think it should not be impossible to have a code of laws that would apply to the whole coast, instead of having the number of laws we have at present.

There is another matter in connection with this Department which I think ought to be remedied. Some years ago—I think, in 1931—the then Minister for Fisheries brought in a Bill for the remitting of certain loans which were granted to fishermen and fishing-boat owners for the provision of boats. These boats after some years were found to be useless. They were of a type that were no good and that did not suit modern conditions, and, in some cases, the fishermen were not able to repay the loans. At that time, a very strong appeal was made by the Opposition, now the Government Party, to wipe that slate clean, and to remit all the arrears due in these cases. The then Minister did not see fit to do so, but that was five years ago, and the condition of things has, of anything, got worse. The men who were unable to pay then, are very much less able to pay now. These men who are still engaged in the fishing industry, and who would be active in it, are unable, by reason of the debts hanging over their heads, to take up fishing in the way they would like to take it up.

In that connection, I would remind the Minister that some of the persons who had their debts remitted on that occasion were men who had given up fishing, and who had put their money into land, but those who are now being pursued by State Departments—State solicitors, and men of that type—are men who are still engaged in fishing and trying to make something out of it. I recommend these men to the mercy of the Minister, and, through him, to the mercy of the Department of Finance, and I ask to have these loans remitted. That was part of the present Government's policy in 1931. The clean slate was advocated very strongly by President de Valera, and supported by Deputy Flinn, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who is better acquainted with the fishing circumstances of the Irish coast than any other man in this House.

With regard to the bounty on cured mackerel, the Minister says it was not very successful last year. I beg to differ from him on that point, because, from what I have learned during my visits to some of the sea-ports around the south-west coast, I believe that all the cured mackerel were cleared from those ports last autumn. That would not have been the case if the bounty had not been given, and the Minister might very well consider the question of a bounty on all fish that we would export—not only for autumn cured mackerel, but for spring cured mackerel and fish exported in every form. It would give a great incentive to the trade, and would help us to build it up. It would not be a very big thing and it would be something that would repay the country very well in the end, because it would help many of the 10,000 people around the coast who are depending on fishing for a living.

I want to emphasise that the Minister should go to the Executive Council and put before them the fact that fisheries at the present time are simply a joke, and that an Estimate of £44,000 for such an important industry is farcical. He ought to get more money, and tackle this question, if he is really serious about it, in a very big way. Of course, I know that the Minister has not very much direct acquaintance with fishing, and without the direction of a strong man, with knowledge, I am afraid this Department can never be made to go ahead. We need to change the psychology of some of our fishermen, too. We must get hold of some of the younger men and give them more imagination and put more drive into them. We must make our fishermen understand that the fish will not come to them, but that they have to pursue the fish. We have got into such a state that we believe the fish ought to be brought into our harbours, and that the fishermen should have nothing to do but to catch them. Our fishermen must have more initiative and that can be encouraged by Departmental guidance and control.

In that direction, I think a little more push and pep ought to be put into the Sea Fisheries Association, with a view to getting them to do more in that line. The Sea Fisheries Association, however, will not be able to do it unless they get more money. More money is wanted for fishing, and it would be better for us to lose £200,000 in fishing than to lose it in—I will not say wild-cat schemes—but in such ill-advised schemes as the Minister had for marketing and the finding of new markets which he adopted in regard to agricultural produce. We have the Atlantic all round us; we have the men if they can be trained. All we want is the material advantage of up-to-date boats and the opportunity of teaching our people up-to-date methods. In that way, I believe fishing can be brought out of the terrible condition in which it is at present. It is really non-existent in most ports where it once was a flourishing industry. It cannot be made a flourishing industry unless it is tackled in a very big way, with drive behind the effort. Without the drive, and without money to help, there is no use in tinkering with it by bringing in an Estimate of such an inadequate amount as £44,000.

Mr. Corish

I am inclined to agree with the last speaker when he says there is not sufficient money at the disposal of the Minister to enable him to develop fishing as it should be developed. I also agree with him when he says that in a great many places that were known as fishery ports in the past, very little fishing is being done at the moment. I suggest to the Minister that if he wants to show his earnestness in this matter he should approach the Executive Council with a view to getting more money to enable him to develop the fisheries as I know he has it in his mind to develop them. In dealing with the question of the patrol of our coasts, the Minister was very indefinite. He did not tell us what he proposes to do in the near future to protect our coasts. He confined himself to comparing certain methods which had been put before him. I think the Minister knows quite well that adequate protection is not being afforded at the moment. He need only go to his files to find letters from his own constituency — I know they have been sent repeatedly from time to time — pointing out that on the south-east coast there are continually a number of foreign trawlers to the detriment of the fishermen from Courtown right around to Carnsore Point, on the Wexford coast alone.

I should have liked to have heard the Minister telling us something about the effect of the recent visit of the Muirchu to the Saltee Islands, immediately after the altercation which took place between the French trawlers and the Kilmore fishermen. I suggest to him in all earnestness that he should approach the Executive Council with a view to getting more adequate protection for our coasts. As Deputy O'Neill has pointed out, a great many people who had been engaged in fishing in the past have given it up in disgust because they were not being adequately protected and not being provided with proper markets. Some people will say, and I think the Minister has said, that there is not the demand for fish in this country that there is in other countries. I do not hold with that view at all. There is a demand, a greater demand than most people think, and that demand is not being catered for. I live in a sea-port town, the town of Wexford, and I think I would be right in saying that for nine months out of the year you cannot get fish in Wexford. There certainly must be something wrong when such a state of affairs exists, in view of the fact that there are plenty of fish outside in the bay. I suggest now, when there has been investigation into the inland fisheries, the Minister ought to get somebody with a proper knowledge of sea fisheries to go into the whole matter and find out what is really wrong and what is the best method of harvesting the fish which is certainly immediately outside our shores.

In the course of the Minister's statement, he referred generally to the findings of the recent Commission on Inland Fisheries, and told us that a comprehensive Bill was in course of preparation and that he hoped it would be introduced during the coming year. In that connection, I do hope that the Minister will not do anything to implement the suggestion contained in the recent report of the commission to the effect that net fishing should be prohibited. The Minister is very familiar with the position that prevails in his own constituency, where men in Oylegate, Edermine, Ferrycarrig, Killurin, Wexford, New Ross and other towns are entirely dependent on net fishing for a living. The Minister is aware of the conditions there and he knows that there are 3,000 or 4,000 people depending on net fishing in the inland fisheries in Wexford for a living. I am glad to note that the Minister has stated that he is not going to adopt all the recommendations in their entirety, especially with regard to netting. I know that the Minister has been in close touch with the people down there in recent years and that he knows the feelings of the men down there, and I feel that he will act accordingly. I must say that it is very hard to understand the mentality behind that suggestion in the report, in view of the fact that there are so many people unemployed in the country. In many parts of the country, where inland fishing is good in summertime, thrifty people are able to make a living, as a result of the fishing during that time, sufficient to keep them for the rest of the year, and one shudders to think what would happen to them if that source of livelihood were to be cut off. I therefore suggest to the Minister that that particular portion of the findings of the commission should be turned down, and I would also urge him to go thoroughly into the question of the protection of our fisheries and of providing a proper market for the fish when caught.

Mr. Bartley

I think that the development of fisheries here will have to have regard to the home market. I do not agree that there is a market across the Channel, to the extent that there used to be, at all events, for Irish fish. When the market was good across the Channel, the kinds of fish principally exported were mackerel and herrings, and we know that the European market for these kinds of fish has practically disappeared. Even the British Government themselves have been trying for the past 12 months to get markets in Europe for their herring fleet. I understand that they succeeded in a certain extent on the Continent, and that has made it all the more difficult, I believe, for this country to find an outlet in Europe for our herrings. Therefore, I say that the absence or the practical disappearance of an outside market for the types of fish we used to export has necessarily given us a new outlook on the development of fishing here at home. When speaking with fishermen on the West coast in connection with this matter generally, I find that they have in mind the very profitable mackerel fishing that existed during the War period. I find that they have particular regard to the War period. Well, I do not think that that can be hoped for again, and for that reason I think they should have particular regard to the home market. As a matter of fact, the Sea Fisheries Association has been trying to get the fishermen back to trawl fishing and to producing a class of fish for which there is a demand here at home. They have been trying to get them back to the old type of fishing that they had long ago, and they have also developed trawling to a certain extent by the issue of boats. I think that that would have to continue, and I do not think there is a very great market across the Channel, because there is a very large part of the cross-Channel fleet, as we know, in our fishing. As a matter of fact, some years ago some of them were on hire or on charter here by the Sea Fisheries Association.

There are two alternatives. Either the Government has got to continue its present policy of trying to encourage the development of inshore fisheries, or else get out of the business altogether and leave it to commercial people to develop the industry on the same lines as fishing is run across the Channel. If we merely have in mind the production of the amount of fish that we require for our own use here at home each year, it is quite possible that that could be done much more effectively by commercial undertakings such as the Dublin Steam Trawling Company; but I do not think that would be wise. I think we ought to reserve the largest possible part of it for the inshore men, but there you are up against the difficulties. The previous Administration had to introduce a Bill dealing with a loan plan in connection with fishing, and a good deal of the loans were wiped out. I think that, in some cases, that Act was rather generously interpreted, but I think that we would be up against the same prospect in connection with any new big issue of loans. There is a lot of money out now under the new scheme of the Sea Fisheries Association, and I do not think that the results are as good as one would like them to be. I know that part of the coast I represent has not got very generous treatment, and in the last 12 months or so a rule has been put into operation whereby a person seeking an engine or power craft must put down one-tenth of the cost. Well, there are not many fishermen able to do that, and I should like to see that rule wiped out for a period. I also hold that the Minister should insist that those parts of the country that did not get fair treatment in the matter of motor-boats should get special consideration.

Certain parts of the country have got a number of boats and the returns, as I say, have not been as good as one would have liked. Of course, I am not saying that other parts of the country would be any better, but fishing is a very up-and-down industry, and, as I say, the only sheet we can catch on to now is the home market for development. I do not think it would be wise that an arrangement, such as the new co-operative marketing arrangement under the Sea Fisheries Association, should be operated on a basis of seasonal fishing such as herrings and mackerel. It can only have a basis on all-the-year-round fishing, and nobody operating a scheme of that kind could possibly do well if he had to depend on mackerel or herrings, because the idea, in my opinion, would be to develop the general type of fishing, get the people back to the old type of fishing, even if it is going to be carried out, as it must be carried out, by the newer methods of the all-the-year-round fishing.

I agree to a certain extent with the Deputy on the opposite side who said that a larger amount of money will have to be spent if the desired results are to be achieved. At the same time, I do not think, in view of previous experience, that a great deal of complaint can be made about the caution displayed by the Government. After all, they have had the experience of the Fisheries (Revision of Loans) Act under which large sums of money were wiped out. In that case, of course, if boats were issued to applicants they had to get two bail bonds. A new system was found under the co-operative marketing whereby instead of getting bonds the applicant for the boat signed a marketing arrangement under which he handed over his fish to the Sea Fisheries Association and they marketed it for him and deducted a certain percentage against the charges on the boat. That has been, in my opinion, an experiment that is well worthy of further trial. As I say, it has not produced the results that we would like, but at all events, it is a very good alternative to the old arrangement. I think it was the general experience that where a purchaser of a boat defaulted, the bail bonds were of very little use to the Department. I am sure that has been the experience of the Department of Fisheries.

I agree with the suggestion that the Muirchu ought to be scrapped. I do not think it is at all fit for its purpose. It cannot be on three coasts at the same time and these foreign trawlers know the Irish coast possibly better than the Irish people themselves. It is not easy to catch them. Short of the alternative boats suggested by the first speaker, I think there ought to be some better co-operation between fishermen and the Civic Guards and, if possible, the military. I think it ought to be possible for specially selected Guards, or soldiers where possible, to get the use of rifles at short notice, and if there is a Sea Fisheries Association boat, or any other boat of that kind, there ought to be an arrangement made whereby it would be placed at the disposal of the Guards where it is necessary to chase these poachers.

I like the idea of the three boats suggested of the mine-sweeper type. If it were possible, I should like to see a double-purpose boat, that is a boat which will protect the fisheries and also engage in fishing itself, possibly in the nature of a training boat, on occasions. Whatever the alternative to the Muirchu is to be, I think it is advisable that an alternative should be found. It is not possible for it to give the service which we expect of it. I think it ought not to be beyond the ingenuity of the Department to find an alternative type of boat which would suit.

It is not possible, I think, to lay down the law about the revival of fishing. Everybody must admit that it has been a very difficult matter, particularly in post-war years. I do not think that it is fair to say that the economic war is responsible for the present position. If Deputies will refer to the reports, they will find that 1927 was the peak post-war year, and we have had a steady decline since 1927, which was five years before the advent of the present Government. It is only fair that it should be recognised that the economic war has not been responsible for the decline.

I think that the present system of co-operative marketing is a good one. It gives the Department a grip on the hire purchaser of a boat which it had not previously. I should like to see greater risk taken in the matter of providing these boats, with, of course, proper discrimination as to who should be accepted as purchasers. I should like to see the scheme further extended, particularly in those parts of the coast which have not had the advantage of the facilities up to this. The present policy should be continued of developing the fishing with an eye on the home market and afterwards we can possibly look further afield. With certain alterations, the present policy is not a bad one. I should like to see a more generous expenditure of money and I would appeal to the Minister, if at all possible, to wipe out the deposit of 10 per cent. Which applicants for a motor-boat must now pay.

Mr. McMenamin

I should like to ask the Minister whether we have a quota for herrings under the German trade pact. I agree with Deputy O'Neill with regard to the Vote. He stated that somebody said that this was probably the last Vote for this Department. If it is not the last, it should be the last, because, so far as I can learn from any source, sea fishing in this country is dead. If the weather was warmer. I would suggest that Deputies should go out after warble flies instead of wasting time discussing this Vote.

It is very hard to enumerate the reasons which have brought about the entire collapse of this industry. I sincerely regret its passing, but so far as I can see there is no life in it, and I see no prospect for it. There are various reasons for that, I suppose. The decline began shortly after the war and has gone on year after year since, until it has now almost completely disappeared. So far as winter fishing is concerned, anybody who was foolish enough to invest money in the curing of the fish and who was able to hawk them round the country in a lorry probably disposed of 200 barrels, but the remainder lie in stores. If these are not disposed of before the end of this month they must be put into cold storage. From inquiries I made I find that it is utterly impossible to ship them anywhere. It is a sad thing to have to say that to-day it is almost impossible to sell 300 barrels of herrings. If that is true, it is a terrible commentary on the fact that we are voting £44,000 here for this Department.

I notice that £14,000 is going to be advanced for the purpose of purchasing boats and gear for the Fisheries Association. It is simply waste. If it is a fact that herrings cured in Ireland are utterly unsaleable, then I think it is unfair to men round our coast, who know the facts at present, but they do not know the prospects of the future, to induce them to purchase boats and gear to the value of £14,000. I venture to suggest that they will not make one penny out of it so far as herrings are concerned, except in the case of loads caught and sold fresh. I suggest to any prospective borrower of that money, so far as my views go, not to avail of it. The next fishing we are to have round our coast is the matge, May fishing. Our boats are entirely unsuited for the May fishing which has to be done 15 or 20 miles from the coast. Our boats are too small to go out after that catch. That fishing is mainly done by Scottish trawlers. In this connection I join with Deputy O'Neill in saying that if a substantial attempt is to be made to deal with this matter, then, a substantial sum of money must be found. It must be made a business proposition no matter where the money comes from. We will have to provide larger boats if we are to go out 25 or 30 miles from the coats. And it will be found that, having provided these boats and gear and crews, we will be unable to provide a market for the catches. Certainly the smaller boats are unable to take part in the matge fishing for herrings. I suggest that, in the main, our boats, even if they had 1,000 barrels, so far as the matge herrings are concerned, will not sell one barrel, by sending them abroad. There are some inquiries from America and Antwerp and one or two inquiries from Czecho-Slovakia. But they are very slow in buying, or taking up a decent order, and they are slower still in offering a decent price for these herrings.

This Department seems to have entirely collapsed since it was taken over by the Minister for Agriculture. It may have been his bad luck or that he struck a bad patch or that he came in at a fatal hour. But, certainly, so far as this industry is concerned the fatal hour has arrived. It is sheer waste of time to be discussing this industry in its present condition. One could waste an hour in destructive criticism as to what is being done but that is rather futile. On the other hand one who has no responsibility in the matter with regard to doing anything or who cannot do anything, does, perhaps, leave himself open to criticism in making any constructive suggestion. But I do earnestly join with Deputy O'Neill in suggesting that one of two things should be done; one is that this Department should be closed down, or alternatively that some other Minister, or some other man, should take a grip of the Department, and that a substantial sum of money should be given to him to put this industry upon its feet. Otherwise it is a question of sheer waste of money in the main.

To talk about this industry is futile unless we are going to put it on its feet in a substantial way which will mean providing a substantial sum of money. Deputy O'Neill suggested £250,000 annually. It may be, as years go by, that a yearly sum of £250,000 might do, but at the commencement a very much larger sum would be necessary. One difficulty might be that after you spent a substantial sum of money you could not now get the crews to man the boats. The older men are too old to fish to-day, and the younger men have dropped off. There is no attraction for any man to fish. The only thing would be to do something that would strike the imagination of the young men around the coast whose fathers had been fishermen. It would be a very bold step to take and it could only be taken with money.

Talking about the protection of the coast, everybody knows our coasts are not protected. It is a matter of common knowledge. But if we left the industry to die why bother about protecting it? Are we going to protect it? That is one of the questions that should be joined up with the question of putting the industry on its feet. I was rather struck with the suggestion of Deputy O'Neill of buying two or three boats of a very effective character for the purpose of patrolling our coasts. I made a suggestion, two or three years ago, that rather substantial boats, well engined and fast, which could be used for the dual purpose of fishing and protecting the fisheries, should be purchased. These boats at one moment could be acting as a sort of decoy, fishing or pretending to be fishing, and could be ready to start off at a moment's notice on learning of the presence of foreign trawlers During the war Germany gave us an idea of this sort of thing, and it was very quickly followed and adopted by other countries. I do not know much about boat building or about navies, but I would agree with the need for providing boats of that sort. It would be a very good idea if we could get an effective boat of that kind, well built and well engined that could serve the double purpose of fishing and patrolling. If by wireless, for instance, it was ascertained that there were no foreign trawlers along the coast, such boat could pursue her productive work of catching fish. But at the moment it is all an idea.

In this country we have a huge coastal population. They have been living round the coast coupling farming with fishing all their lives, but they never seem to have got a solid grip of fishing. The fact is they are half small farmers and half fishermen. They do some winter and May fishing for herring. They spend a month salmon fishing and then they come back to work on their plots. This State will not have a fishing industry unless it has a body of men who will take up fishing as a profession, man their boats and pursue the fish during all the seasons of the year. If the fish are not to be had around the coast of Ireland, then there should be a body of Irish fishermen who would follow the example of the Scottish, Norwegian, French and English fishermen and go elsewhere in search of the fish. This business of waiting for a shoal of herring to come into the bay, catch a few of them, put them into barrels and then sit down until the next shoal arrives, will never create a fishing industry—an industry which will assure the foreigner who wants a supply of fish of efficient service.

It would be idle to go into the items of this Estimate because the only question at issue is whether or not we are going to vote this money. In my opinion, we should not do so. The Minister is not entirely responsible, seeing that this industry is only a short time under his control. But the industry is dying and it will be dead if the Minister remains much longer in office. What I do not like in connection with this Estimate is not so much the money involved but the absence of any indication from the Minister in his opening speech that he is about to make a bold effort on behalf of the industry. That is why I blame him. Before we had a Government of our own in this country, Irishmen made a very bold effort to keep this industry on its feet. When the Treaty was signed in 1921, the fishing industry was by no means negligible, notwithstanding that the country had not a Government of its own. All the big Powers are spending enormous sums of money on their fishing industry. England, France and Germany are voting large sums for the development of their fisheries. The militaristic-minded person may say that that money is being voted for an ulterior purpose—to train seamen. But while there may be an ulterior motive, what the men are engaged at is fishing. Our fishing industry is almost dead. Why? Because these countries are spending these enormous sums on the building up of efficient fishing industries. Our industry is so impotent and weak that it is disappearing in this contest. It is in the position of other industries which are crushed out by huge combines.

I was told along the coast a few days ago that, now that no provision was made for the fishing industry in our trade pacts, there will be no May fishing. What prospect is there for young men to go into the industry? It is futile to ask them to do so. Deputy O'Neill suggested that the Sea Fisheries Association had developed a taste for fish amongst the people. My experience does not confirm that. Along certain bays during the winter, men who caught fish were prepared to sell them cheaply. But the people jcered at them when they came along with small carts and they told them that they had plenty of free beef. The Minister for Agriculture is in that capacity killing an industry for which he is responsible in another capacity.

I notice on a slip in the Report on Inland Fisheries the statement that the cost was £1,030 and the cost of printing £127. It is, therefore, a rather costly document, but it is really not worth the paper on which it is printed. There is only one suggestion which could be adopted from the practical point of view. That is a rather interesting suggestion. It is that one of the men on this board which it is proposed to set up should be a person with legal knowledge and that another should be a man with experience in the sale and handling of fish. I was certainly tickled when I read that clause. It makes one smile to think that one of these three men who are to look after the fishing industry is to be a man with legal training.

The main suggestion of the Tribunal is that drift-net fishing for salmon should be abolished. That shows that the men who made that recommendation were either utterly ignorant or indifferent. The suggestion was that we should wait until the fish come up to the neck of the river, scoop them up and put them into boxes. Anybody who knows anything about fishing—I do not suggest that I know a lot about it but I know a little—is aware of what occurs in a dry season. When there is no fresh water up the river, the fish know that, though they are not in the river. Therefore, they remain out in the bay—sometimes a considerable distance out—and, ultimately, if they find that the season continues to be dry and that there is no use in their hanging about, they go back to sea. This commission, which was set up by the Government and for which this money was voted, makes this suggestion! That is the one constructive suggestion they put up for dealing with this industry. We have had three very dry seasons. There were limited periods during those three years when there was a run of fish but, in the main, there was no run of fish. Large numbers of salmon which would have gone up these rivers in the ordinary course lay out at the mouths of the bays and finally did not come up the rivers at all. The suggestion, nevertheless, is that we wait at the mouth of the river until those fish come up, put out a net and catch them. I am very glad the Minister has turned that suggestion down. There is another proposition about the construction of weirs for catching fish. I do not know what inspired that. Apparently the whole thing is a question of slaughter, like the attack that is being made this year on warble flies. They were to be killed and, apparently, there was to be no trouble about it. Fish at the estuaries were to come to the neck of the rivers and traps were to be made for fish higher up, and then, apparently, men were to be employed with sticks to knock these fish on the back of the neck. There is a society in this country for the prevention of cruelty to animals which might get busy there. I regret the condition into which this industry has fallen. For many years I have been interested in it, directly and indirectly. A great friend of mine gave some of his best efforts to sustain the industry, but I feel glad that he is not alive to-day to see the depths to which it has sunk. I desire to support Deputy O'Neill's proposal, that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

Mr. J.P. Kelly

I was interested in the remarks of the Minister relative to the mussel-fishing industry, and although County Meath has a very small coast-line, yet the fishing industry there is of a substantial character. Considerable hardship has been inflicted upon people there owing to the action of medical officers in various towns in England refusing to certify that mussels entering the markets are free from sewage. I was glad to hear the Minister stating that the proposal for the erection of a cleansing tank for the purification of mussels has not been lost sight of, and that bills of quantities and plans for such a tank are in hands. I was also glad to hear that negotiations are proceeding with a view to securing the consent of the medical authorities in England to admit mussels that have passed through a purification tank without undergoing any further inspection, or purification process. Although negotiations in that respect may be proceeding, I would like to know from the Minister if any headway has been made during the past 12 months. Local fishermen engaged at the mouth of the Boyne at Mornington, inform me that they are satisfied that a market exists across the Channel for the mussels, if they are purified. A number of towns which were hitherto supplied from Mornington have made inquiries as to the possibility of obtaining supplies, following the erection of a tank to purify the fish. I know that the reason these markets were restricted in the past ten years was not the Minister's fault. They were closed before this Government came into power and the previous Government was unable to take effective steps to have the restrictions removed. It is well known that 200 people make a living by fishing for mussels in Mornington, especially during the slack period of the winter months, while in spring and summer they are engaged in net-fishing for salmon at the mouth of the Boyne. I was pleased to learn that the Minister has the interests of these net-fishermen at heart, and that it is not proposed to take away their means of livelihood. If there is delay in securing the consent of medical officers in England to the admission of mussels to the markets there, I think the Minister should take into serious consideration the advisability of having a small tank erected at Mornington. The most effective method of dealing with the position, as stated by the Minister, would be to have the industry taken over by the Sea Fisheries Association, especially from the point of view of marketing. In case there is any more delay, seeing that the market is there, I ask the Minister seriously to consider the question of erecting a small tank. The original intention was to have a tank erected on lines somewhat similar to one at Conway, in North Wales. Last summer I saw a rather small tank which was erected on the River Ribble in Lancashire, and it appeared to me that the expense would be small. Such a tank could easily be adapted to suit the requirements of the fishermen in County Meath. I am quite satisfied that the Minister is doing his utmost to secure a market which was lost a few years ago for our fishermen. Grants were given by the Department during the winter months in recent years for the extension of the musselbeds at the mouth of the Boyne, and as these are now ready for harvesting it would be a disaster if this potential source of wealth was lost to these fishermen and to the country.

Sir Osmond Grattan Esmonde

Deputy McMenamin has fairly accurately expressed the opinion of most people in this country with regard to the Government attitude towards the fishing industry. Everyone is unanimous that they are not serious in anything they might do in regard to this industry; that in fact they do not care twopence for it; and are quite content to see it gradually die. I think it would be far decenter if they stopped the farce and did not propose to expend this large sum of money doing nothing. We cannot discuss with very much use the report with regard to inland fisheries which was mentioned by Deputy McMenamin, but I am glad to see that the Minister is not prepared to accept it, at any rate, in entirety. A question has already been raised by Deputy Corish, with regard to tidal waters, and estuary net fishing. There are other items in the report which are equally unsatisfactory. I think it has been received unfavourably in all parts of the country and I do not think we are likely to hear very much more about it. I certainly do not envy the Minister if he has to produce a Bill regulating inland fisheries, because the whole subject is so complicated and local conditions are so different on each river that to prepare legislation capable of dealing with the whole situation and to generalise regulations would be extremely difficult.

So far as sea fisheries are concerned, apparently the Government are not serious in their desire to remedy the situation. They have allowed fishermen to suffer as a result of the economic war. One Deputy suggested that the economic war had nothing to do with the decline of the fishing industry. That is not so. Deputies know perfectly well that although fishermen, as such, have nothing to do with the land annuities dispute, they have had to pay their share of the land annuities through taxes imposed on the fish exported. The Minister ought to be well aware that, during recent years, trawlers, particularly British vessels, have waited outside the three-mile limit at night and Irish fishermen have gone out surreptitiously to them to sell their fish at a better price than they could secure by selling them in Ireland and then having them taxed when sending them over to England. That was a very common practice for some years; I do not know if it still continues. It certainly disproves the suggestion that the economic war has had nothing to do with the decline in the fishing industry. In view of the fact that fishermen have nothing to do directly with the land annuities dispute, I think they should have got bounties corresponding to the total amount of the taxes imposed on their exports of fish. That has not been done. It was only after a year or two that in some particular categories a small bounty was granted.

With regard to protection, it is universally agreed that it is a farce having only one boat to patrol the whole Saorstát coastline. It is rather interesting to recollect that some six or seven years ago, when members of the present Government were here in opposition, they carried on a great agitation because of the inadequate protection given to Irish fisheries. Hardly a week passed without some question being submitted or some speech being made by persons who are now Ministers, criticising the then Government for inadequate protection of the fisheries. This Government have been in office for several years and, if anything, the situation is worse than it was, because the present Government have done absolutely nothing. For instance, it was during the term of office of the last Government that the Lough Foyle fishermen were attacked by their opponents across the Border. Deputies then in opposition, Ministers in the present Government, commented very strongly on the attitude of the authorities, but what have they done to protect the rights of the Lough Foyle fishermen? Have they sent the Muirchu into Lough Foyle to protect these rights? They have not.

Along our southern coast there are French trawlers and also great numbers of English trawlers operating. Along the South Wexford coast there are English and French trawlers frequently seen. They travel the coast practically the whole way to Waterford and Cork. Off West Cork large fleets of Spaniards come with elaborate equipment and they settle down for a long stay in our territorial waters. Around the Blasket Islands Spanish fleets have been operating. They bring doctors and a whole staff with them for protracted periods of poaching on our property. Then in the North we have the Scottish and the English poachers. The Government really ought to take very definite action with the object of properly protecting our sea fisheries. In Scotland they are very careful about protecting their sea fisheries. Not alone do they protect up to the three-mile limit, but they go to a far deeper extent than three miles. Deputy O'Neill suggested that three substantial boats might be of assistance. I think that would be possible, if they were fitted with wireless and if there were spotters along the coast, perhaps spotters in small flying boats who could keep in wireless communication with the larger boats, informing them where raids would be taking place. It would be only by such means that they could directly intercept the raiders.

The Government know that this is a big question. If they want to tackle it properly, as they are doing in England and Scotland, in Iceland, Scandinavia and other countries, money will have to be spent. The whole thing will have to be gone into thoroughly and it will have to be an industry organised on a national scale. It will be a very big undertaking. Apparently the Government are anxious to funk that responsibility and therefore I do not see why they should bring forward this Estimate, which is only a waste of money. I will draw the Minister's attention to what happened in his own constituency, and I expect it will happen again. In view of the absence of Government assistance to defend the rights of the people, the people arm themselves as best they can and shoot at the raiders who poach on their fishing grounds. In view of the failure of the Government to defend national property, I think it is only right that the citizens should take it on themselves to protect that property. It is a poor commentary on the way the Government carry out their duties when it is left to the fishermen themselves to do what the Government should be doing for them.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy O'Neill, in commencing his speech, said something I thoroughly agree with. He said that I do not know as much about fisheries as I should know. I am always anxious to learn, but with all due respect to the Deputy, I did not learn very much here to-day about fisheries. There were very few suggestions made that could be regarded as constructive. Deputies pointed out that things are bad. Perhaps I am willing to admit a thing I know. I know the position fairly well in regard to fisheries, but I have not got very much help in the way of a suggestion that might bring about an improvement. Deputy O'Neill and other speakers criticised very severely the amount of money allocated to fisheries; they said that it is entirely inadequate. I had to listen for four days to criticism here for providing too much money for agriculture. That was the gist of the speech of every Deputy on the Opposition Benches— what did I want with £2,000,000 for agriculture?