Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 Apr 1937

Vol. 66 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—Fisheries.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £27,829 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, 1938, chun Tuarastáil agus Costaisí i dtaobh Iascach Mara agus Intíre, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £27,829 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, 1938, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

This Estimate comprises four sections—Administration, Sea Fisheries, Inland Fisheries, and Sea Fisheries Association. The total of all four sections shows a net decrease of £300,226 as compared with the figures for the previous financial year. Administration is divided into four sub-heads, A, B, C and D. In sub-head A there is an increase of £1,057 over last year, which is explained partly by normal increments on salaries, and partly by the provision of two additional posts, namely, an assistant engineer and an assistant inspector of fisheries, the latter being really a revival of a post that had lain in abeyance for about three years. Sub-heads B and C show slight increases in view of additional travelling and other expenses which are anticipated. Sub-head D calls for no comment. It is right, however, that I should repeat a statement which I made 12 months ago, that in the event of rather extensive legislation dealing with our inland fisheries being enacted within the current financial year a certain measure of increased outlay upon administrative and technical staff will be inevitable.

Sea Fisheries.—This section deals with the purely administrative side, together with the protection service, and the provision set down in the Estimate is virtually the same as that for the preceding year, the total increase being only £22. There is not much to comment upon as regards the four sub-heads—E (1), E (2), E (3) and E (4)—which comprise this section, except in regard to E (3), which deals with protection work. Speaking on this point 12 months ago, I reminded Deputies that everyone was satisfied that effective control of our entire coastline by one cruiser was not possible, and at that time my Department was actively engaged upon arrangements for the chartering of a second vessel for this duty. Unfortunately, when we were ready to execute the charter, the owners of the vessel concerned changed their minds about hiring, with the result that we had to start all over again in our search for a suitable ship. Our requirements in the matter are rather exceptional, and it is not easy to find a vessel which fulfils them. I am glad, however, to be able to say that we have now practically completed negotiations, and, subject to the result of a final survey now to be made on our behalf, we hope to take over this second ship and have her in commission by an early date. At the time that the Estimate which we are now discussing was being framed, matters had not advanced sufficiently to justify the inclusion of any provision in respect of the second cruiser, but what I am now stating is by way of information to the House rather than a comment on the Estimate before us, because, naturally, this is a case in which I shall have to come later on with a Supplementary Estimate.

Inland Fisheries.—This section of the Estimate is made up of sub-heads F (1), F (2), F (3) and F (4), and is just £35 below the total figure for the preceding year. No change has been made in any one of the items except that in relation to grants for boards of conservators, which has been slightly reduced; that in respect of grants to local associations, which has been raised by £50; and that for Black Castle hatchery, which has dropped from £50 to £15. I have already on three occasions explained to the House all the implications of this section of the Estimate, and I do not think that there is any need to discuss the details again.

Sea Fisheries Association.—In this case I wish to offer a few special remarks. Under one of the rules of the association the duty devolves on the Minister in charge of the fishery service to satisfy himself that all moneys issued to the association, whether by way of repayable advance or as a grant-in-aid, are being utilised by that body strictly for the purposes for which such advances or grants had been made, and to the advantage of the sea fishing industry generally. That is to say, that while as large a measure as possible of autonomy is being accorded to the directors by whom the business of the association is managed, the Minister shall, from time to time, take stock, as it were, of the position. To that end I have set up a small inter-Departmental committee to survey generally the results of the association's operations during the six years in which it has been actively employed. Owing to the setting up of that committee, a departure was made from the normal procedure under which estimates of their requirements are furnished to, and discussed with, my Department by the directors of the association in respect of sub-heads G (1), G (2), G (3) and G (4) of this Vote. It was felt that, in the special circumstances, the best course would be to set down for the current financial year a round figure in each case, issues from which would be subject to consultation with the Minister for Finance, and which, furthermore, could be reviewed in the light of the report which will be furnished in due course by the special committee referred to.

This seems to me an appropriate point at which to advert to two matters that have been under discussion for the past few years. One relates to the absence of Continental markets for our cured herring. In that connection we had been strongly urged to do everything possible to have the German market for that commodity reopened to our people. Accordingly, when the trade agreement between the Saorstát and Germany was being discussed last autumn, special efforts were made to induce the German authorities to allocate a reasonable quota for cured herring of Saorstát origin. If our representatives were not as successful in this matter as we, and they, hoped might be the case, they at all events secured some results, and during the period April to July of this year, the German Government is providing import licences and currency facilities for some 15 or 16 importers in Hamburg and Stettin, with whom such of our exporters as are interested in the business are open to make their own arrangements. The names of these German importers have been circulated to all persons who are believed to be engaged in this trade, and a copy of the list will be sent to anyone else who chooses to ask for it. It is true that the total amount of the quota is small, but it is to be hoped that, if satisfactory deals take place in the present year, it may be possible to effect some improvement in the quantity that may be taken by Germany in future seasons. This statement, of course, is made with all due reserve, because we cannot anticipate the result of negotiations from year to year.

The other matter which has been greatly exercising those of our people who are concerned with it is the setting up of a plant for the cleansing of mussels prior to their export to British markets. On at least two previous occasions I have explained to the Dáil that until, as the result of inquiries and negotiations which had been set on foot in this case, we could be assured that mussels so treated here and exported under the certificate of the Sea Fisheries Association will be assured of entry into Great Britain, the Minister for Finance—not unreasonably I think— could not see his way to authorise the capital expenditure necessary in the matter. I quite realise that this question has been in abeyance for a long time, but I would counsel all who are affected by it to exercise some further patience, with the assurance that my Department is doing its best to find a way out of the difficulties confronting us.

There are just two more points of general interest upon which I wish to say a few words before I close. Following consideration by the Government of the report furnished by the commission set up to inquire into the position of our inland fisheries, legislation has now been rough-drafted departmentally. I had been hopeful of introducing such legislation during the present session, but I fear that, owing to the prolonged inter-Departmental negotiations which have arisen and certain complicated questions which have, as a result, come up for settlement before the Bill is put into final shape, it may not be possible to fulfil my intentions. In that event it will be necessary to have a short extension of the Fisheries Act, 1925, and of the Fisheries (Tidal Waters) Act, 1934, approved by the Dáil; but I should like to assure the House that, even should such a temporary expedient become essential, it will not be permitted to delay work upon the major Bill.

Finally, I should like to repeat in substance what I stated last year as to the existence of a good market in this country for the landings which might be made by a well-equipped and well-managed company engaged in deep sea trawling. Certain proposals have since then been presented to the Government; but in every case such proposals seem to entail a measure of State assistance, not to say of State interference with or control of the industry which, in my view, would in the ultimate tend to hinder rather than help the genuine commercial development of this business of deep sea fishing. It may be taken that the Government will be found to be favourably disposed towards any sound, workable scheme for the development of deep sea trawling.

Mr. Dillon

I am sorry that the Minister did not expand a little more on that question about deep sea trawling, because that has been greatly canvassed for a long time. Does the Minister suggest that we are to find in this country a market for wet fish to be caught in deep sea trawlers? If he does, I do not know where we are going to get it. Far more important than embarking on a comprehensive scheme of deep sea trawling would be the getting of a market for the wet fish that can be caught by our inshore-fishermen. To have a successful trawling industry you want a disposal centre like Grimsby or Yarmouth. To have successful inshore fishing is to confer an immense benefit on a great part of our western seaboard. The bulk of our fishermen like to work on their holdings, and to fish in season. That is the way they have been brought up. Those of us who believe that life in the Gaeltacht can be a very happy life for those who love it, wish to mitigate the rigours of that life in so far as possible without migrating the people out of the Gaeltact altogether. Some people think that you ought to take all the people out of the Gaeltacht and plant them somewhere else. Some people are now learning that when you take them out they prefer to go back there again. Those of us who know the Gaeltacht have seen people coming back from New York and Chicago and settling down in the middle of it, because they like it. It is their home; it is the way they like to live. If they are given a chance to earn their livings, albeit the work is hard, they are glad to take it.

Instead of spending oceans of money on buying trawlers, which are immensely expensive both to purchase and maintain, I would much sooner see the money spent on developing a distribution system for such wet fish as is caught by the inshore fishermen. Remember that life on a trawler is a nasty business. There is as much difference between the life of a trawler fisherman and the life of an inshore fisherman as there is between the life of an industrial worker in the Black Country of England and that of a small farmer in the County Mayo. The inshore fisherman has a perilous life, but he is always near home, and it is a healthy life. It is the life he is accustomed to; there is nothing revolutionary about it. A trawler man is an industrial worker, and an industrial worker on a particularly hard, arduous and disagreeable kind of work. I am sufficiently old-fashioned not to desire to thrust that kind of industrialisation down the throats of our fishing people. I do not think that the fishermen themselves want it. What they would like would be facilities for the disposal of the fish that are caught inshore.

Of course, it is terribly difficult to provide those facilities. If you could get regular landings, the problem would be considerably simplified, but they are very difficult to get. Sometimes the men do not get the fish; they come in late; sometimes the men cannot go out. But I feel that the wisest thing here is not to be too scrupulously businesslike, not to insist on a return of 20/- on every £1 invested. The problem is partly a social problem as well as an economic one. I should like to see a little money lost in providing a guaranteed market for inshore fish. I would be prepared to lose money over 12 months in providing that guaranteed market for the fishermen, with a view to determining finally whether you can get the fishermen to deliver fish at a port on a given date, and reasonably near a given hour. There is no use in closing our eyes to the fact that fishermen are not the easiest people in the world to work with. They are very individualistic. They are very reluctant to fall in with any rigid plan, and they are sometimes inclined to complain rather more than the circumstances entitle them to. However, they have a hard time of it, and one does not want to be too critical.

One has to bear in mind that there are great difficulties in the problem, but I have no doubt at all in my mind that the best solution of those difficulties would be, for 12 months from a given day, to give the fishermen a guaranteed market for the fish at their place of landing. That would ensure supplies; that would regularise the livelihood of the fishermen. I would then proceed to deal with the problem of disposing of the fish. No doubt, for the first few months a great deal of the fish would have to be thrown away, because you could not sell it quickly enough, but I believe that, with the co-operation of local authorities and by carefully-planned circles which would bring travelling fish-vans into market towns on the market day, we could work out a system whereby a very considerable proportion of the fish could be disposed of readily through the country. I do not think it would be any hardship on county homes to require them to give two fish meals a week. We recently heard Deputy Haslett very reasonably complain of the monotony of the diet in some public institutions. If you are in a position to give the inmates of public institutions really fresh fish twice a week—fresher fish than they ever get from Grimsby—I think it might be a very pleasant change from beef or mutton. After all, fish is fish, but bullock beef may be elderly cow, and best wether mutton may be dilapidated ewe. I am also quite sure that if we could get the vans to go into the market towns on market days you could sell fish. I have seen the Sea Fisheries' van solemnly arrive in Ballaghaderreen on a Thursday to sell fish.

Mrs. Concannon

So that the Deputy could have fish for his dinner on Friday.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Mrs. Concannon has fallen into the trap. She says, so that I could have fish on Friday. I never buy fish on Thursday for Friday. Most people, I think, buy fish on Friday for Friday. If this van came into the town on Friday, the town would be thronged with people looking for fish. What happens is that they come to us on Thursday, go some place else on Friday, and there is nobody in either place looking for fish because it is mainly country people who buy fish. They greatly relish fresh fish, herrings and flat fish. Therefore, I think that, if the vans arrived in country towns on market days, you could dispose of a great deal of fish in that way. The country people, mind you, are not wedded to fish on Fridays only. Fish is a novelty for them, and they like to have fish on other weekdays as well as on Fridays. If they knew that it was to be obtained, that there was a constant supply of fresh fish available, I believe you could build up a considerable market in that way. It would take time, but I am satisfied that it could be done.

Now, while inshore fishing is important, it pales into insignificance beside herrings, and the herring business is being made a horrible mess of. We are making trade agreements with Germany. We are doling out to Germany butter at 4d. and 5d. per lb. cheaper than our own people can buy it. We are sending them cattle at 27/- per cwt., cattle that are making 40/- on the Dublin market. We are sending them eggs which we do not want to send them and for which we have got a very much better and much more profitable market elsewhere, and, if you please, we are binding ourselves to take from Germany considerable quantities of merchandise in exchange. We are in a position to tell Germany to go to blazes. If she will not buy from us the things that we want to sell, we ought to tell her bluntly to go to blazes and run the German buyers out of the town. That is the way to deal with them. If they are prepared to deal with us on the same basis that they want us to deal with them, then we are prepared to deal with them; but we should make it perfectly plain to them that we will not give them exclusively what they want to buy, and buy from them exclusively what they want to sell.

Dr. Ryan

They do not ask that.

Mr. Dillon

In effect, that is what they are asking.

Dr. Ryan

There is no effect about it at all. They do not care what you buy from them; it is the total that counts.

An Ceann Comhairle

Apropos of fish, the Deputy and the Minister seem to have discovered a red herring.

Mr. Dillon

The trouble is that Germany is one of the principal markets that we have got for herrings. Germany at present wants fats. She is drawing out of this country animal fats, of one kind or another, at about two-thirds of their current value. If Germany was to come to us and say that she was prepared to take off our hands something that we find great difficulty in selling elsewhere, I think the Minister would be perfectly justified in giving Germany concessions. I think there is something that Germany wants perhaps as much as animal fats, something which, I think, we would be quite entitled to give if we could get a market sufficient to absorb all the herrings that we have to sell, and that is sterling. I think the German Government would be very glad to get sterling. The Government here would, I think, be quite justified in giving substantial concessions to Germany if they would agree to take all our herrings. Why not say to them: "We will give you a two-to-one market if you take all our herrings, and pay you 50 per cent. in herrings and 50 per cent. in sterling."

The German market is a valuable one for herrings. What maddens me is that we are giving valuable concessions to Germany, and selling them stuff that we do not want to sell them far cheaper than we sell it elsewhere. That, to my mind, is crazy economics. Suppose, as things are, that we cannot get into the German market any more herrings than we are getting in there at present? It is now pretty clear to all members of the House that the British Government are quite prepared to make a deal with our Government whenever it suits the convenience of both. Could we not make an arrangement with the British Government whereby we would exchange with them the purchase of British merchandise for the share of their herring quota in the German market? I would remind Deputies that up to recently we habitually got it, because all the Buncrana herrings brought into Derry and cured there were shipped to Germany as British herrings. It was only recently that stopped. Could we not make a deal along those lines in order to get an outlet for our herrings? I am convinced that if this problem was approached in a rational way, and with good-will, we could get this market.

Anybody who is intimately acquainted with the Gaeltacht areas on our West coast can understand what a difference it would make if we had a market sufficient to absorb all the herrings that our fishermen are in a position to catch. It would change large areas from being what they are to-day, vast workhouses of idle men— men anxious to work, who can find nothing to do—into hives of industry. Remember, also, that there are lots of girls who are now being driven over to Scotland to work at herring curing there. They are being driven into highly undesirable surroundings, and they are being driven thither because the work which they used to do near their own homes curing the herrings on the North and West coasts of Donegal has completely ceased. I would like to see those girls brought home again, and allowed to do that work amongst their own people. It is rough work, and if they have to do it in Scotland, then they are going to be brought into contact with the roughest of rough, many of them simple, innocent girls who would be much better off at home amongst their own people. The matter is one of great urgency, and I do not want to pretend that it is not one of very great difficulty. I think that if the matter was tackled in a bolder way than the Minister has tackled it so far, more could be done.

I think it is only right to remind the Minister that, when his predecessor was in office, he made the welkin ring. He denounced him as selling the fishermen and betraying our national liberties and national rights, and prayed for the day when he could put his hand to the plough and plough a furrow which would surprise the natives. It has surprised the natives, because he has done nothing except this one thing—he has learned sense and learned some realisation of the difficulties that confront a person in his position of responsibility, and that is something. Do you remember the grand old days when Fianna Fáil was going to settle the Lough Foyle situation overnight? I remember, in 1932, we had an election in Donegal. I do not see Deputy Brady here now, nor Deputy Blaney, nor Deputy Hugh Doherty. They were all in Donegal then, and Deputy Doherty from Inishowen was like a tornado.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like to hear the Deputy relate that to the Estimate. The matter appears to be more relevant to the Vote for External Affairs.

Mr. Dillon

This was made relevant to everything. I think it comes under sea fisheries or protection. We were going to send an Irish fleet in there and blast the British fleet out of creation. We were going to send an expeditionary army into Northern Ireland and arrest Craigavon and bring him up before the Circuit Court in Letterkenny and give him six months for interfering with the fishermen. In the glorious days of 1932 there was nothing we would not do.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is not objecting to the expedition, but is anxious to ascertain which Minister would have charge of it.

Mr. Dillon

In those days the Minister was to lead the expeditionary force and to come back with these hostages, and, accordingly, scenes of great enthusiasm were created. Deputy Joe O'Doherty was triumphantly returned to press the claims of the fishermen in Dáil Eireann, and from that day to this devil a word we have heard about them—not a whisper—until last week, after years of stout battling, the Saorstát Eireann Board, who used to issue licences to the fishermen to fish in Lough Foyle, gave in their guns and stated that after five years of Fianna Fáil nothing can be done and they had better wind up.

Here again the only benefit that has accrued to the State is that the Minister has learned sense. He has realised that there is a problem which cannot be dealt with on the lines of a bull in a china shop. It is a very difficult problem, but one not incapable of solution, and the tragic part of it is that just when Fianna Fáil came into office the whole question was on the very verge of solution. An agreement had been almost drafted, and was prepared to be initialled, which would have regulated the rights of the Northern Ireland and the Saorstát Eireann fishermen in Lough Foyle and done substantial justice to each. But, of course, that would never gratify Deputy Joe O'Doherty, who wanted to have marching and counter-marching and a martial spirit throughout the land. A perfectly useful arrangement that was being arrived at was torn up and thrown away, and the Lough Foyle situation is now that no Saorstát Eireann fisherman can put his nose into Lough Foyle, and the Six Counties have complete control to-day.

There is another immensely important problem to which I am amazed the Minister has not referred this evening. A situation arose in connection with a decision of the Supreme Court of this State in which a man, who had paid out an immense sum of money in good faith for a several fishery on the River Erne, woke up one morning to discover that he had nothing; that his property suddenly vanished into thin air overnight. Many opinions might be expressed on that judgment, particularly in the light of evidence given in an analogous suit which was before the courts in regard to the several fishery on the River Moy recently. This is not the forum in which that might properly be discussed, but this much is certain, that taking those two suits together and the evidence given in them, it is eminently desirable that the Minister should use whatever powers are at present conferred upon him by statute to deal with this whole several fishery question in the country. It may be that he will have to ask the Executive Council to authorise an ex gratia grant but, whatever is done, the men who have lost these several fisheries should be compensated from the public purse.

The Government have acquired the value of these fisheries and that value is immense. Many of these people who own these several fisheries are people who are traditionally associated with the Unionist minority in this country. Some of them are better Nationalists than ever sat in this House. But the majority of them are held by men who were notoriously associated with the Unionist minority in this country. That should merely make us doubly solicitous to see that justice is done to them, not only in the letter but in the spirit as well. It is a deplorable situation—I will not say further than that—that a perfectly honourable citizen of this State, having paid the full value of what was recognised to be a genuine, real property, should wake up one morning to discover that a title that was never contested for centuries has suddenly been blown sky high, more particularly when the decision to do so is founded on the evidence of historians, who subsequently come before the same court and say that, as their knowledge progresses, their opinions materially alter.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be wiser not to pursue the legal aspect.

Mr. Dillon

I will not go further into it. Suffice it to say that the Minister ought to take the opportunity to-day of making a comprehensive statement on this matter and of saying categorically to these persons, whose property has left them, that the State will see that they will suffer no inequitable loss. I urge on the House to remember that the effect of this decision was to transfer this property to the State, so that the State is now in enjoyment of these immensely valuable fisheries. We are not asking for what is a de facto ex gratia grant. In theory it is an ex gratia grant, but in effect it will be merely a just purchase price for valuable consideration. I feel strongly about that, because this business has been dangling on for years. When you have an elderly man with his entire property swept away overnight it may be the death of him. While none of these men would be unreasonable or press the Government unduly to rush into a solution, it would relieve their minds and greatly ease their personal positions if the Minister, sooner or later, were going to take whatever steps may be necessary to see equity done.

What about getting the tariff off shell-fish and salmon? We got the tariff off horses. The trade in shell-fish, even more than in horses, has been disrupted and spoiled by the tariff, not so much by the money that had to be paid, but by the delay and annoyance in getting them through to the London market in fresh condition. The amount of money involved must be very small, and I need not tell the Minister that the lobster industry on the west coast of Donegal is of great significance to the people. It would make an immense difference to them if it was free of tariffs. I urge strongly on the Minister that he should start a little trade agreement of his own, and open up negotiations directly with the British Government to have this duty taken off, or, if not taken off altogether, let him shift it from shell-fish and salmon on to something else, and we will see about getting it off the other things later on. So far as fishing is concerned, I am primarily concerned to see the market for herring recovered. That is the main problem and I mentioned the last matter as a mere minor consideration. There used to be a good deal of kippering done on the west coast of Donegal. I do not think it was done in other parts of the fishing country, but I imagine we could redevelop the kippering business, which would give a good deal of employment. Remember, if you could get one good kippering plant going in West Donegal, it would employ more than all the silk factories that could be built there. The talk of such factories is mostly "cod," as we know. If you have them, they must be second-rate, or producing under extreme difficulties.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy's description of them brings them under the Fisheries Vote.

Mr. Dillon

I am going on the never failing indulgence of the Chair. If you had a good kippering plant, the most efficient that could be got—and you must turn out the best product to have it economic—and if you spent as much money trying to sell the kippers as you do in trying to build silk factories, you would build up a valuable and a permanent trade for this country. These are the kind of lines I would like to see this Department worked on. While I think it is a great pity it did not work more on these lines in the past, I hope it will do so in the future.

Mr. J.P. Kelly

The question of erecting a mussel purification tank has come up regularly on this Vote for a number of years. In fact it is a hardy annual. The Minister stated that until the result of the negotiations which he is carrying on with the health authorities in England have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion, it would not be possible for him to advise the Minister for Finance to place at his disposal the money necessary for the erection of a purification tank. May I ask the Minister if any progress in securing this market has been made during the past year? I should like to know also if any further assurances have been received regarding acceptance by the British medical authorities of mussels bred in tanks in this country. I know that trade inquiries for mussels have been received recently by a number of traders from large towns in England. If the Minister cannot secure a guarantee that certificates will be issued by medical authorities in England I suppose we cannot go ahead with the matter. I am concerned about it in this way, that we have a potential source of wealth in the mussel industry at the mouth of the Boyne. Some years ago thousands of pounds were earned annually by fishermen who were engaged during the winter months fishing for mussels. That source of income has been lost to them, and they are anxious that they should be allowed to commence operations again.

Various suggestions for dealing with the matter have been made. One was that if the Minister was not disposed to agree to the suggestion to erect a central tank in Dublin Bay, which was provided for in the Estimates some years ago, that he would consider the question of allowing the local people to erect a smaller tank, thereby giving them an opportunity to find out if it was possible to secure a market sufficiently large to provide them with a livelihood. These people have been provided with grants during the winter months, and a number of them were drawing unemployment assistance, so that if there was any loss on the erection of a tank, it would be made good by the savings that would be made by other Departments each year in the way of grants and unemployment assistance. The Minister has asked the people to have patience, so that he would have further time to consider the question. I suppose they may take that as a hopeful sign, that the Minister is convinced that certain progress has been made, and that in a short time he may be able to give a decision.

An aspect of the question that concerns me is that the mussels at Mornington, at the mouth of the Boyne, are now at their best stage of development. I am satisfied there would be a quick demand for them if they were allowed into the British market. I feel that the superior quality of the mussels would win the approbation of the medical authorities if there were a few markets open, and if health certificates were forthcoming from three or four towns in England. I think it would be a very wise policy on the part of the Minister to allow the smaller tank to be erected, and the mussels sent over, because I believe their good qualities would convince other medical officers of health and that they would issue the necessary certificates. I suggest that a bold step should be taken by the Minister. I am sure the Minister for Finance would lend his assistance, and I believe the result would justify the expense.

Mr. F. Lynch

When dealing with this Estimate I will take the items in order. Take Sub-head A, where it seems extraordinary to see the head of the branch down for a salary of £700, whereas further down on the list officers, who are working under him, are more highly paid, one being paid £800 and another £750. It seems to me to be an extraordinary state of affairs that the head of the branch should not be paid a remuneration at least equal to the highest paid official working under him. I do not say that the chief inspector, who gets £800, and the engineer who gets £750, are in the least overpaid. On the contrary. There is no man alive who knows half as much about our complicated code of fishery laws as the present chief inspector does, and he is a great asset to the Department. The engineer of the Department is one of the few marine engineers we have in this country, so that in no sense do I consider that they are overpaid; but, on the other hand, they are working under the authority of the head of the branch, and I think it is a very peculiar arrangement that the head of the branch should not at least receive the salary of the highest paid of those two officials. I say that with no regard to the present occupant of the position. I say it because I believe it is a bad principle to have the head of a branch paid on a lower scale than those who are working subordinate to him.

I am afraid it is part of the policy that was adopted a few years ago when fisheries disappeared altogether from the cognomen of the Minister. There was for a period a Department of Fisheries under a separate Minister. About 1928, fisheries went in with the Land Commission, and the Minister was known as the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, but fisheries were still kept prominently to the fore. When the present Government took over, after a very short period of office, the name "Fisheries" disappeared entirely. It was hidden away obviously with the idea that people would forget about it, because the Government felt that there was nothing showy and nothing flashy about fisheries work and the possibilities of fishery development. Therefore, they decided to hide it away in a corner so that people might forget about it until we came to the Estimates each year. I think this is part of the same business. There is one Department in the Book of Estimates, which I turned over here by chance—Local Government and Public Health. Besides a secretary and assistant secretary, you have there five principal officers on a scale considerably higher than the head of the Fishery Branch, so that the estimation of the Government with regard to the whole fisheries business is that it is of less importance than any one of those sections of the Local Government Department which is administered by a principal officer. I leave sub-head A with that.

There is no comment to be made on other sub-heads until we come to sub-head E (3). The Minister has told us that he has stated before, and it has often been stated here, that it is agreed that effective control by one patrol boat was impossible. In 1933 the Minister brought in a Bill, the Sea Fisheries (Protection) Bill. I think it became law about December, 1933. I remember when that Bill was before the House I told the Minister that the Bill as it stood was not worth the paper it was written on if he had not some additional coastal patrol to enable him to enforce its provisions, and I told him it would have been wiser for him to have waited until he had that additional coastal patrol before bringing in the Bill. I felt that the poachers, the British steam trawlers and the French lobster boats, would only laugh at the impotence of this House in bringing in legislation with a flourish, setting out what we were going to do with the poachers, and then, in effect, allowing that piece of legislation to become a dead letter from the very first day. I do not know what the mentality of the Government is on that matter. A very prominent member of the Sea Fisheries Association has recently told us that it was almost good for our inshore fisheries that the sea bottoms should be trawled by British steam trawlers. I do not think that Father Shiels will get many to agree with him in his own county, or in any other county; I am certain that the Minister does not agree with him and that that is not the view of the Department.

The Minister certainly was not of that opinion when he brought in the Fisheries Bill of 1933, because I remember that one of the things he said on the Second Reading was:

"The most serious injury to our inshore fisheries, and to the immature fish which frequent the shallow waters during their development from the fry stage, is done by the modern high-powered trawlers. The existing laws for the protection of these inshore waters from such vessels have become inadequate, and further powers are required to meet the changed conditions."

That was at column 609, volume 50, of the Dáil Debates. That was his view then, and I take it it was the view of the Department. I am certain he does not agree with Father Shiels that this intensive trawling of our inshore fisheries is good for the inshore fisheries.

There is one thing, however, on which the Minister must be congratulated on this sub-head, and it is the successful way in which he has muzzled his own back benchers, and, indeed, members of the Labour Party as well, because everyone remembers when Fianna Fáil were in opposition how vocal the Fianna Fáil back benchers were about sea fisheries protection. I remember that at that time members of my own Party were amongst the most critical Deputies in connection with this matter, but they could say nothing compared with what Fianna Fáil Deputies said. It is amusing to read some of those speeches now, because, practically from the day Fianna Fáil came into office, we did not hear a word about the foreign trawlers from these Deputies. Some of them, of course, have gone to higher spheres, but looking through some of the speeches made then, I came first of all upon a speech of Deputy Domhnall O Buachalla, who waxed belligerent in connection with foreign trawlers. This is what he said:

"Maidir le ceist na n-iascairí, sé mo bharúil nach bhfuil aon intinn ag an Rialtais ná ag an Aire rud ar bith do dhéanamh chun ár n-iascairí do chosaint ó sna creachadóirí iasachta a thagann isteach annso chun ár n-iasc do thógaint leo. Níl a fhios agam an é is cúis leis sin, nach bhfuil an comhacht ag an Aire nó nach bhfuil sé de mhisneach aige, nó ag an Rialtais, ordú do thabhairt do Chaptaen an ‘Mhuirchú' urchar so scaoile leis na creachadóirí seo chun a theasbáint dóibh nach bhfuil cead acu teacht isteach annso agus ár gcuid éisc do scuaba leo."

Further down, he says:

"Má táimíd saor, cé'n chúis nach ndéantar rud ar na hiascairí? Deir sé linn go bhfuil bád ag an Roinn agus go bhfuil gunnaí air. B'fheidir nach bhfuil ann ach gunnaí bréige. Ach má tá bád ann agus gunnaí air, cé'n chúis nach gcuirtear in úsaid iad?"

Further down still, he talks machine-guns and says:

"B'fhearr i bhfad níos mó bád beag a bheith againn agus meaisínghunnaí orra agus iad seo do chur in úsáid má tá gá leo."

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy give the reference, please?

Mr. Lynch

Volume 34, columns 17 and 71, of the Dáil Debates.

Mr. Anthony

If he translated it, we would be better off.

Mr. Lynch

Deputy Allen spoke in the same debate. Deputy Allen was very interested in the coast of Wexford. He is reported in the same volume, at column 98——

Mr. Jordan

A good date for Deputy Allen.

Mr. Lynch

Let us turn to what he said in column 98:

"In regard to the poaching by French boats off the Saltee Islands, the fishermen there informed us that there are certain spawning beds which they have never fished but that the French and British boats encroach on that area and around the great islands off Duncannon and take away the spawn of cod, haddock and other fish. The ‘Muirchu' is costing £8,000, though her speed is only 36 miles a day or 1½ miles an hour, and she burns 2½ cwt. of coal for every mile she goes."

That was Deputy Allen on the 26th March, 1930. I asked him where he got the information and he said he found it in the Appropriation Account. He went on to say:

"I think it would be a good idea for us to make a contribution to the Naval Conference in London by scrapping the ‘Muirchu' and getting a few submarines instead."

He goes on in, more or less, the same tone. Since Fianna Fáil came into power, or since he came back to the Dáil, Deputy Allen has not had a word to say about the French poachers off the coast of Wexford, or about the spawn of cod or haddock. Another Deputy who used to be very vocal when the Government Party were in opposition is hardly heard here at all now. I refer to Deputy Micheál O'Clery. Deputy O'Clery, speaking in 1931, said:—

"Another reason why I am going to vote against this Estimate is because one of the big things which is the great drawback here, and which will continue to hamper this industry, is this menace of the foreign trawlers. Years ago, we were promised that something effective would be done to tackle this question of poaching by the foreign trawlers. The ‘Muirchu' cost a considerable amount of money to maintain, and this year there was an increased cost of £600 for the ‘Muirchu.' That is absolute waste of money."

Deputy O'Clery is not here to tell us to-day that the money is being wasted.

"The whole amount of money spent on that Vote is a waste, when we consider that for the past year there has been only one capture and one prosecution of foreign trawlers by that boat.... I think the Minister should seriously consider the scrapping of that boat and think out some better method of protecting our sea fisheries from foreign trawlers."

Then he gives us this choice piece:—

"I wonder, if we had some small patrol boats in some individual fishing quarters, if it would be possible to have the co-operation of the Army aeroplanes which are doing nothing at present if, perhaps, we exclude joy-riding over the Curragh."

That was Deputy O'Clery in 1931. He proceeds to say in the next column:—

"The cost of £10,000 a year or more on the ‘Muirchu' for the protection of our fisheries is an absolute waste of money. I do not think that the Minister could justify that expenditure. This is one of the main reasons why I am going to vote against this Estimate or vote to have it sent back."

We must not forget the Labour Party. I am glad that Deputy Corish is here, because Deputy Corish used also hold forth very strongly about the inadequate protection afforded our fisheries. We have not been hearing so much about that in recent years from Deputy Corish or any other member of the Labour Party.

Mr. Corish

You heard it last year and you will hear it again now, if you wait.

Mr. Lynch

Deputy Corish used one expression two years in succession, so that I need not go any further back. Here is what he said:—

"Everybody in this country, especially people with nautical experience, knows that the operations of the ‘Muirchu' are an absolute farce. The vessel is too slow to get out of her own way."

That is Deputy Corish in 1931. He said exactly the same thing in 1930:

"When she comes within miles of where the trawlers are, it is known all over the coast. I cannot understand the shortsightedness of the Government in this respect."

I congratulate the Minister on having succeeded in muzzling practically all that criticism since the Department of Fisheries was hidden away under his wing. There is no question that poaching by foreign trawlers is, at least, as bad as ever it was and the French lobster boats are coming in just as much as they ever did. In fact, up to the outbreak of the Spanish war there was a new type of steam trawler coming along the coast which did not constitute a problem in our time. A considerable number of Spanish trawlers were operating off our coast up to the outbreak of the Spanish war. We were not troubled with those at all. But the problem is there as much as ever it was and the Sea Fisheries Protection Act, 1933, has not had the least effect in preventing this poaching. As the Minister was told, it could not possibly have any effect unless there was some arm by which the provisions of the Act could be enforced.

We next come to the question of inland fisheries. I was sorry to hear from the Minister, in that connection, that the Bill which had been promised for quite a period to deal with the whole question of proprietary fisheries will not be introduced this session, which means it will not be introduced before the election. I think that that is unfortunate. I am no advocate of a Fishery Bill on the lines of the Fishery Report but, once the Minister has announced his intention to bring in a Bill following the Fishery Report, it would be advisable that legislation should be introduced with as little delay as possible, whether it be based on that Report or not. The interested parties are very concerned as to what their position will be. The proprietors of fisheries want to know where they stand. They are in a state of concern as to whether or not these fisheries will be their property when the Bill becomes law. They are inclined to neglect the fisheries to some extent. They are not inclined to spend as much money in the protection of the fisheries as they spent in the past when they knew they had an estate which they could look forward to owning for a comparatively long period. On the other hand, you have the persons who hope to have these proprietary fisheries converted into public fisheries. These persons ought to know what their position is with as little delay as possible. The other matters under the heading of "Inland Fisheries" stand very much as they always stood. The Minister mentioned that it will be necessary to introduce legislation prolonging the provisions of Section 13 of the 1925 Act which, I take it, relates to rates on valued fisheries.

With regard to the Irish Sea Fisheries Association, I see there is a drop in the amount provided under sub-head G (3). Whereas £14,000 was provided last year, a sum of only £10,000 is provided this year for this purpose. I should like to have some explanation of that. I was rather sorry the Minister did not give us more information about the operations of the Sea Fisheries Association. It looks rather retrograde that the amount of money allotted to the Association for boats and gear should have fallen. One would hope that, at any rate, over a period of years—until we felt our fishermen were all pretty well equipped—this would be, if anything, an increasing Vote. Certainly it should not be decreasing. Many people are complaining that they have been applying and have not been met by the Sea Fisheries Association in their request for the standard boats the association have got built. I am afraid that the conditions attaching to the getting of these boats is making it impossible for most of the members of the association to succeed in their applications. That is not the fault of the Minister. It is the fault of the Minister for Finance because of the conditions he has laid down for the making of these advances for boats by the association.

There is a provision that these men have to put up portion of the capital required. In very many cases this is absolutely out of the question. Of course, nobody appreciates better than I do that the Minister has a very substantial reason for being cautious. The history of advances to fishermen in the past is not a very savoury one. For one reason or another the obligations were not met as they should have been met. Even in very many cases where the fishermen made money on the advances that had been made to them by the Department they did not make a serious effort to pay their loans. That was what happened in a number of cases. It was not so in the majority of cases, I admit. The majority of the cases in which the men did not meet their obligations were of the type where persons bought boats when they were at a very high price. Having bought these boats at a very high price, and shortly after having incurred heavy financial commitments, the slump came and these men were absolutely unable to meet their obligations no matter how anxious they were to do so. But if the Sea Fisheries Association is to have any chance of success there must be some elasticity in allowing them to supply boats and gear to the fishermen members of the association. The association have means of knowing their men far better than the Department had. The association should have a free hand. Where you have a genuinely hardworking, honest, fisherman, especially if his past record with the Department has been a good one, the association should have a free hand to equip him with a boat and gear without any previous condition such as putting up portion of the capital. Under the new arrangement they would have a very safe handle over him. They would have the handling of his fish. If he is doing well they can deduct a certain percentage which will enable them to recoup themselves.

The Minister should try to get the Minister for Finance to ease the situation for the Sea Fisheries Association in making grants of boats and gear to the members of the association. Otherwise, I am afraid that most of the Irish fishermen—some of them quite honest, hardworking people—will remain for ever on the shaughran. While on that question I would refer to the fishery loans. Deputies remember that a big volume of these fishery loans were wiped out by, I think, the Act of 1930.

Mr. O'Neill

By the Act of 1931.

Mr. F. Lynch

That left over other outstanding loans. The Department of Finance would only go that far at the time. That was because some of the loans were incurred in quite recent times. I am afraid that was a mistake. I think that, unless you start afresh with the fishermen, there is no hope in respect of the old loans now hanging over them by the Department; that attempts by the Department to collect these loans as best they can will be ineffective. I think it would be better if the fishermen were handed over to the Sea Fisheries Association lock, stock and barrel. Let them be handed over to the association rather than have the Department looking to the fishermen or, perhaps, what is worse, looking to the fishermen's sureties to pay. Most of those who went surety for fishermen were persons who did not make one penny out of fishing themselves. They were local business men, teachers, doctors, and so on. Whatever was to happen they would not have made anything out of the loans. These sureties were men whose names were good in the bank. They went to the bank or to the Department as sureties for these fishermen. If the fishermen made good, those sureties did not stand to gain one penny. It is very hard luck on these men that they should be harassed now by being asked to liquidate these loans, especially when they have before their eyes the example of very many other sureties who had been relieved of their liabilities under the Remission of Loans Act. I suggest to the Minister that he would put it to the Department of Finance that the Department would, once and for all get rid of those loans. Let the Sea Fisheries Association get all they can from these men, hand them over as members of the association and let them pay out of the catch as other members of the association do. That would save the Department a great deal of trouble and annoyance, and it would relieve many decent people along the western and southern seaboard, and indeed along the eastern seaboard, too, from what has become a very unfair burden.

The Minister spoke about cured mackerel. I would like now to refer in a few words to the market for fresh mackerel. I understand that a bounty is provided for the export of cured mackerel. That is not, in fact, of any great value now. Our export of cured mackerel to Great Britain was never of any great consequence. Nearly all our mackerel in the past went to America. That market is, to a great extent, dead. There is a market for fresh mackerel in Britain, but as far as I can gather there is no bounty to help our fresh mackerel in that market. We import fresh fish free of tariff here, while our exports of fish to Britain have to carry a tariff. Salmon may be able to carry a tariff. Luxury fish of the type of salmon can carry a tariff but mackerel cannot. Mackerel is a very important portion of the fishing industry. Valentia Harbour always did a very big trade in fresh mackerel. I put it to the Minister that that is a trade which should be encouraged.

Putting the fishing industry on a solid basis is most important to the people of the seaboard. I know, of course, that in doing that there will not be all fire crackers and all the glory that there is to be got in going down to one of our provincial towns, turning a key in a factory, and coming back to Dublin with a nice key for the china cupboard. But there is a solid old Irish industry there. For generations upon generations Valentia Harbour, the part at Cahirciveen, had a big trade in fresh mackerel with the London market and other centres. That market should be encouraged by a bounty on fresh mackerel.

I was very sorry to hear the reference to the purification tank for mussels. It is a pity that this thing has been postponed so much. If my recollection is right, I think this tank would cost only £5,000. My recollection is that the erection of a purification tank on the lines of the tank at Conway in North Wales would cost something between £5,000 and £6,000 —something less than £6,000. If that is so, it does seem absurd to postpone it. That, I believe, is the suggestion that the Minister put to the House. I suggest to the Minister that the condition that is asked for by the Department of Finance is utterly ridiculous. If I understood him aright, what he said was this, that unless we secured beforehand some assurance from the British authorities that fish or mussels bearing the certificate of the Sea Fisheries Association will be allowed into the market without question, then we are not going to provide the £5,000 or £6,000 necessary for the erection of a purification tank. Is that not absurd?

After all, the persons we are concerned with are not the British Government. If it were a matter of negotiation between this Government and the British Government, that might be a reasonable proposition; but the fact is that we are dealing with the medical officers in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, and so on, medical officers in big industrial cities, and not with any British Government Department. Does it not stand to reason, if we have a purification tank here on the lines of the Conway tank, that automatically the mussels that have been purified in that tank will be accepted by the medical officers in these various British centres because they will stand any test to which you put them? The Minister ought to appreciate that himself. How could a medical officer give a free bill of health beforehand in regard to something he had not examined, and merely on the certificate of the Sea Fisheries Association, which, after all, is a body of laymen? There is not a medical officer on the board of the association, so far as I know.

Very naturally each one of the medical officers will realise that once the mussels have gone through the purification tank they are all right. After a little while the bacteriological examination of the mussels in these centres will be a very formal affair, I should say, once the medical officers are satisfied that the mussels have passed through the tank. It is a ridiculous proposition that the Minister should ask such a certificate when the amount for the erection of a tank is such a small thing like £5,000 or £6,000. Surely it would not break us to embark on that expenditure and ensure thereby a very profitable market for a very poor class of our fishermen. The men who engage in mussel-fishing are amongst the poorest of our population. In my constituency they are very poor indeed. They are from one point in the constituency, Cromane.

The Minister ought to see the Minister for Finance and tell him that the condition he has imposed is absurd, that no medical officer could possibly give a certificate of that kind beforehand, and that it was a thousand to one that the mussels which have gone through a purification tank will pass any bacteriological test that may be put up by any of the medical officers in the industrial centres. They are not going to go out of their way to reject our mussels, because mussels are a very important portion of the dietary of the poor industrial workers in these areas. They are not going to go out of their way to exclude mussels from the menu in those areas, and if they find, after half a dozen inspections of the mussels that have been through the tank, that they are free from the bacillus coli, there will be no difficulty in regard to future consignments.

Mr. Anthony

I do not desire to take up the Minister's time at any great length, but I wish to pass one or two comments on this Estimate. I regret very much to see that the Estimate for inland fish hatcheries shows a decrease for this year—that is, for the year 1937-38. At the same time, I am pleased to note that the grants to various boards of conservators remain in or about the same. The Minister must be aware that there is no activity of the Department of Fisheries which gives more benefit to the country and does more good in a general way than the money allotted under the sub-heads to which I have referred, namely, the grants for inland fish hatcheries and the grants to boards of conservators.

In connection with the boards of conservators, I am almost certain that the Minister must have had some representations from the Blackwater Board in relation to the Lismore weir. If that weir were controlled by the Minister, I am sure it would not be the menace it is to-day to the fishing on the Blackwater. If that weir were nationally controlled, or if some arrangement could be arrived at between the Duke of Devonshire and the Minister—perhaps if the Minister would approach him in his usual manner such an arrangement could be arrived at—it would confer an inestimable boon on the local fishermen and sportsmen and would add considerably to the attractions and value of the Blackwater and its tributaries.

I would like if the Minister would give the House some indication as to whether or not he will receive a deputation from the riparian owners on the Blackwater, whose interests are very seriously affected by the weir at Lismore. I subscribe to a lot of what has been said by Deputy Lynch in relation to the care that was bestowed many years ago on some private fisheries and the neglect that has taken place over recent years. But I do not quite agree with him as to the causes, because the Minister must be aware that many of those riparian owners find themselves in a very extraordinary position; in many cases they do not know what rights to the river they have; in other cases where the riparian rights have been purchased the tenants find themselves, owing to economic conditions, in a very bad way. I know of several fisheries which are to be had quite cheaply and which formerly were let at a fairly high rental. Indeed, they can now be had in many cases for merely paying the rates. I can supply the Minister with numbers of cases of the character I have indicated. I have actually been offered fishing in exchange for paying the rates on the fisheries, fisheries which, to my own knowledge, were let at anything from £150 to £300 for the season previously.

In that connection I want to say that, with regard to the weir at Lismore, many years ago a well-known and even famous authority on fisheries, the late Henry Ffennell, Scottish Inspector of Fisheries, was employed by the Board of Conservators to look into the question of Lismore weir, and he stated, amongst other things—I do not wish to quote now all the things he said—that he had come to the conclusion that it would be no exaggeration to say that the weir presents as formidable a barrier to the ascent of fish as it is possible to conceive, while the Queen's Gap may, without any hesitation or reservation, be pronounced to be an absolute farce. I could-quote from the late Judge H. D. Conner, with whose Fishery Acts the Minister must be conversant, but most fishermen, who take any interest at all in the stocking of our rivers, know that, amongst other things, Judge Conner urged that the only way to deal with such cases as arise, due to the existence of this weir, was to empower the Department's inspectors with authority to inspect all weirs and salmon passes from time to time and to hold inquiries and to issue such instructions to weir owners as would cause every gap to conform with the Acts and become a genuine free pass for salmon.

I was rather surprised to hear the Minister say that he does not propose to introduce legislation, for some time, at any rate, dealing with such matters. Possibly, by that, he means until after the general election. I regret very much that he cannot see fit to introduce at an early date the necessary legislation, based, to some extent, on the report on inland fisheries, which was issued some time ago. With much of that report I find myself in agreement, but there are many other portions of it with which I do not find myself in agreement. In that connection, I should like—I do not want to use the word "warn"—but I should like to urge upon the Minister to have no regard whatsoever to the suggestions made in a part of the report that a 5/- licence should be imposed per rod on trout anglers. There are two matters in which I feel a deep personal interest, and that is No. 1. The other is the fact that, to fish for white trout, one must have a salmon licence. Let us take the question of this 5/- licence that is suggested. We have endeavoured, and every sportsman in this country has endeavoured, to make this country as much of an angler's paradise as we can possibly make it. One of the biggest attractions in this country to visiting tourists, and to visiting sportsmen especially, is to find that most of our brown trout fishing is free. That is an asset which, I do hope, will not be in any way affected, and I sincerely hope that it will not be affected in the way proposed in one of the recommendations in that report, namely, to impose a 5/- licence on anglers fishing for brown trout.

There is a very large and growing number of persons going in for fishing for trout. I think it is a thing that should be encouraged. I feel we should rejoice to see so many of our young people making for the country on Sundays and holidays and enjoying themselves on the river bank. In that connection, it must be remembered that many trout anglers bring their sons with them, and if they are compelled to pay this 5/- licence per rod, many of these people will find themselves unable to do so. I hope the Minister will appreciate that, when these men bring their children along with them on Sunday mornings or on holidays, they usually bring rods for the children also; and if any Act is passed in which a provision of that kind is included—namely, to impose a 5/- tax per rod on trout fishing—it will cause inestimable damage to fishing generally because I do know that in many cases rivers may be poisoned at their very source, and it will be a tax that will be very difficult to collect and, in my view, it will be a most objectionable tax to put on that class of sport.

Now, there is also the question of the £2 licence that is expected from a man who fishes for white trout. I am speaking, if you like, from an uninterested point of view, because I hold a salmon licence for two areas, namely, from the Board of Conservators of the River Lee and also for the Blackwater. I know that the Minister has no control over the fact that any salmon angler, leaving one conservator's district and going into another, has got to pay 10/- for every other district in which he fishes.

As I just mentioned, I may have to add to that list, as I have before, towards the end of the season, and that is a grievance. However, as I feel that the Minister has no control over that, I do not wish to urge it upon him, but I do urge upon him the necessity of reducing that £2 licence for white trout. Many of these anglers go fishing for brown trout, and they occasionally hook a white trout or a salmon trout, and if they are caught they will be hauled up and fined. Cases such as that have happened, where men went out to fish for brown trout and caught a white trout by accident, and they are then fined for having caught the white trout. I urge upon the Minister that he should do something in that connection. If it requires legislation, as I know it will, I would urge upon him to consider that aspect of the case. Principally I want him, if and when he is framing fishery legislation, not to allow himself to be influenced by a certain number of people in the country who want to inflict this fine of 5/- on a number of persons who can ill afford to pay it. I am speaking, as I say, as one who knows sufficient about the sport and about the people who take part in the sport. I do hope that the Minister will bear that in mind, and I would also ask him, when replying, although perhaps this is not the appropriate time to make the request, to tell us that he will receive a deputation who would go fully into the matter of the weir at Lismore.

Mr. O'Neill

In dealing with this Fisheries Estimate, Sir, we are dealing with an industry that is practically disappearing altogether from the Irish shores. I am referring now completely to sea fisheries. That industry, to a great extent, and particularly in the last few years, has been a fadeout. In fact, latterly it is becoming almost what is called, in the language of the films, a black-out, and shortly, as I said last year, there will be no necessity to bring in an Estimate for fisheries, because the fishing industry will not be of such a nature as to warrant any expenditure on it. Paradoxical as it may seem to advocate it, I do advocate that more money ought to be spent on this matter, and, instead of looking for £41,749 for what ought to be a very important matter, I think that this matter ought to be grasped and grappled with in a very big way.

For many years past, under the British régime and under the Government that previously held office in this country, our fisheries seemed to decline but I think that the decline has been much more marked for the last few years than it has been for any similar period previously. In spite of this decline in the industry, there is an increase in the cost of administration. There is a small increase in the number of salaried persons and in the amount of travelling expenses. The increase in the general administrative cost is £1,115.

If we look at the figures in connection with the industry, we shall see very clearly the effect that the Fianna Fáil administration has had on this important industry. In 1931 the total quantity of fish landed was value for £223,074 and in 1935 the value of fish landed had decreased to £163,298, that is a decrease in the five years of £59,776. A curious thing is that while in the year 1935, the amount of fish landed by our fishermen was value only for £163,298, we imported for consumption in this island of ours, a country with the biggest coastline in proportion to its size to any nation in Europe, fish to the value of £264,953, very nearly double the value of the fish caught and landed here. There has also been a terrible decline in the number of boats engaged in the industry. In 1931, the last year of the Cosgrave Government, the number of boats engaged in fishing was 3,634 and in 1935 that number had fallen to 2,834. That is a decline of practically 25 per cent., a decline of 800 boats. That included boats that were engaged in part-time fishing and boats engaged in whole-time fishing. The number of men employed fell from 11,926 in 1931 to 9,072 in 1935. That is a decrease of 2,854 men. Only about one-third of these men are regularly employed, that is men who spend their whole time at the industry and have no other occupation or calling except that of fishing. So that in this great maritime country of ours we have less than 3,000 men employed as whole-time fishermen. Certainly there is something wrong in an industry that we speak of as one of our most important industries, an industry that should be next in importance to agriculture, when it can only employ less than 3,000 men in this country.

Deputy Dillon, speaking on this Estimate, told us that we should have no interest in trying to develop sea fisheries on the lines of the big trawler system, that we should go out to develop inshore fishing. He gave as his reasons that if we had trawlers on the lines of the big commercial concerns we would not be able to handle the fish in the first place, and, in the second place, we would not be able to dispose of their catches, because the Irish people are very particular about the quality of the fish they eat and also about the quantity of fish they eat. Notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of the people of this country are Roman Catholics, they eat fish very sparingly. We are not a fish-loving people. There seems, on the contrary, to be an inexhaustible demand for fish in other countries and particularly on the other side of the Channel. It may, perhaps, be out of order to refer to the economic war in this respect, but it does affect our fisheries very seriously. There are certain classes of fish caught at certain times of the year which we cannot absorb on our markets. I would particularly refer to shell-fish. On the south-west coast, during the winter season, fishing is carried on for shell-fish known as scallops. About 250 men are employed in the worst months of the year in this particular branch of the industry. Fishing begins in November and comes to an end in February. The men engaged earn very sorely indeed the little remuneration they get from that fishing. There is no local trade, no home trade, for that fish. The fish is caught only for the British market, but there is an import duty upon it. I think the Minister refunds one-third of the tariff on shell-fish. I would suggest to the Minister that, particularly in regard to periwinkles and scallops, he ought in all cases to give a bounty equal to the tariff. The amount involved would be very small as far as the National Exchequer is concerned, but it would mean a very big thing indeed to the poor men along these coasts who have to depend for a living during the winter months on that precarious class of fishing.

Speaking about our inshore fishing, it is very difficult to see how inshore fishing can ever be developed unless some protection is provided. The best means by which that protection can be afforded is a matter that has never seriously occupied the attention of any Ministry here. We have the Muirchú, of course. She is costing us from £8,000 to £10,000 each year, but she is certainly no good from the point of doing anything effective to keep off the marauding trawlers which were so eloquently referred to by Fianna Fáil Deputies when they were in opposition. The problem with which the Fianna Fáil Government has to deal in this respect is the same problem with which we had to deal, and I am sure that Fianna Fáil Deputies, though they are so silent now, appreciate the difficulties as much as we do. Everyone who lives in a maritime county, those Deputies especially who know West Kerry, where conditions are similar to those in my own district, wishes to see this problem tackled in a practical manner. I put it to the Minister last year that to defend these coasts properly—I am not using the word "defend" in any extreme sense—we must have more than one boat.

I suggest that we should have at least four boats, four good-sized boats, which would patrol the coast in four divisions from Donegal right round to Carlingford Lough. These boats should be of such a size that they would be able to put to sea at a time when a good-sized trawler could put to sea. They must be able to get out to sea quickly and they must be manned by a good class of sailor. Here I come to an important point: would it not be much better if our Government had four boats of this kind manned by, say, 20 young fellows—that would mean the employment of 80 to 100 young fellows altogether—who could be given a proper training at sea, than to have these young boys drawing the dole and standing at the street corners in our towns? It would be giving some of them a taste for the sea. It would be training them to take an interest in sea work, which might become very useful to them afterwards as deep-sea fishermen or deep-sea sailors.

Having done that, you are up against another problem. I think it is evident to most people who have studied inshore fish habits that the fish are receding each year; they are going further out. The men sometimes have not got the boats and gear to follow them, and when they have they are up against the trouble of the marauding trawlers. At the present time there is no power to keep anybody off our waters to a greater extent than three miles. Being now a nation in every sense of the word, and enjoying our own sovereignty, we cannot frighten anybody off further than three miles according to international law. Anybody interested in fishing will understand that three miles are absolutely no protection whatever. We must have some arrangement by which we will be able to protect a greater depth of coastline than three miles. Some time ago some persons who had studied this problem said that you must get the big trawlers kept 15 miles outside. We do not ask that; we are not going to ask the Minister to do impossibilities, but it is a question that might be tackled in an international way, in conjunction and by arrangement with other countries interested in fishing, who might have as big an interest in preserving the spawning beds as we Irish people would have in preserving them for our own interest. Latterly an international arrangement was come to and a commission sat, I think, in London on which our Board of Fisheries was represented. I think they came to a unanimous agreement in the end with regard to certain sizes of meshes and certain nets. They also came to a conclusion regarding the taking of small or immature fish. If we can arrange with other countries on those very important points for the preservation of fish, I think we should be able to deal with them on the still more important matter of preserving our territorial waters, and try to get from those other countries a promise that they would not encroach beyond a point which would ensure to our inshore fishermen at least some sort of livelihood from their efforts. I think I have dealt sufficiently fully with that mater.

Like my colleague, Deputy Finian Lynch, I was very sorry to see that there has been a cutting down of the amount for boats and gear in the Sea Fisheries Association part of the Vote. I think our men ought to be encouraged to a greater extent to get up-to-date boats and gear. Like Deputy Lynch, I would ask the Minister to make a clean sweep of the legacy in regard to old debts which, perhaps, Deputy Lynch himself left behind in the Department. I have been interesting myself in a lot of them, and I am sure the Department will know that in cases where I found any money could be got I was able to give them some information by which the debts could be considered good, and by which an arrangement could be made to have them settled on some compromise. Where there was no use in trying to get the money, I also told the Department that it was better to write off the debt. I think the time has come —after all the assiduous care that the Department of Fisheries and the State Solicitor have taken to get in those debts—to write them off as bad debts, and not to continue carrying them on in their books as something still due. The fishermen must get a chance. Although they did their very best to pay those debts, unfortunately, the times and circumstances went against them. The fish disappeared, the boats became out-of-date, and the debts remained unpaid. I would appeal to the Minister to do what he possibly can to extend his consideration to those men, at least 80 or 90 per cent. of whom honestly intended to pay those debts if they were able to do so.

Speaking about inshore fishermen, I said that the amount of fish which were landed was only £163,293 worth. Taking the total number of fishermen engaged, both regularly and casually, that works out at £18 per man per annum, or the large sum of 7/- per week. I think it is a terrible reflection on the Department and on this industry to say that the greatest remuneration which the sea fisheries of this country can afford to those engaged on them is the magnificent sum of 7/- per week. I think it should be the aim of the Minister to do something better than that. As I said, this Department has been getting worse and worse; although I say the Department, I mean the results of the industry rather than the Department. The Minister probably does not know much about fishing, as we have ceased to have a real Minister for Fisheries. As was said, the word "Fisheries" has disappeared from the nomenclature of our Ministers. We have no such thing. It is tacked on to a Minister like the Minister for Agriculture, who is already so overworked and whose office is so overcrowded with activities that he is unable to pay any proper attention to such an important matter as fisheries.

I would ask the Minister to do what in him lies to put more energy into this work, to exercise more imagination, and to try to realise the possibilities of this industry. Do not run away from the difficulties of it. Try to grapple with them. Good men in the past have been beaten, I will admit, in trying to put the fisheries of Ireland on a proper basis, but I say that they were never on a more unsatisfactory basis than they are on at the present time. If anything at all can be done in the future, surely to God the next change will be something for the better, because worse they cannot be than they are. I would ask the Minister then to do what he possibly can by getting together more specialised knowledge with regard to this matter; by getting men expert in this important industry, men who have had experience in the industry, business men with business ideas, to see how it can be worked. If I were the Minister for Finance in this country, I would act on the assumption that the country can well afford to try the experiment of spending a large sum of money on this fishery industry, so that we might see, once and for all, whether anything can be made of it. If we fail, in God's name let it be a magnificent failure; let us be able to say that we have done our best to do something for this really important and basic industry, which would mean so much to the very poorest of our people, people who would have a good livelihood at their very doors if only something could be done to afford them in this industry the protection that a Government Department should be able to afford.

Mr. J. Flynn

I am glad that Deputy O'Neill referred to the point made by Deputy Lynch, namely that those arrears should have been wiped out. I am glad that Deputy O'Neill admitted that Deputy Finian Lynch, as Minister of the previous Government, had to insist on the full amount being paid and the full deposits being made available. As Minister, it was his duty to insist on that system, and insist on those amounts being forthcoming. Now that he is in opposition, it is more popular to come along and say that they should be wiped out.

Mr. O'Neill

On a matter of correction, in 1931 Deputy Lynch brought in a special Act to wipe out the biggest part of those arrears.

Mr. Flynn

I want to make the point that neither Deputy O'Neill nor Deputy Lynch can have it both ways. As a Government, they had to insist on those moneys being paid. Now, when they are in opposition, because they seem to think it is more popular, they suggest the wiping out of those arrears. I should like to point out that for years, since we became the Government, as representatives of the people we have tried to gain concessions from the Department of Fisheries in regard to the payment of those arrears.

I must say that the officials concerned have given us every facility, but the agreements entered into under the previous Government have to be honoured and the moneys made available. At the same time I think it is imperative on the Department and on the State to make some concession. In view of the conditions prevailing, I would suggest that there should be some writing off in regard to the arrears mentioned by Deputy O'Neill. The people in the area that I represent find it very difficult either to pay the instalments or to pay off the arrears due. An important matter affecting our area is this question with regard to mussels. This has been going on for years, and we have been agitating for a revision of the whole system. I think it is up to our Government to regard this as a national question. It is a matter that requires negotiation as between our Government and the British Government. It is not a question of experiments or of one area against another area. It is a question calling for direct negotiation so that some arrangement may be arrived at with the British medical authorities under which they will recognise the certificate of the Sea Fisheries Association. We have suggested various methods of dealing with that problem, but perhaps the Minister could arrange that something definite would be done through the High Commissioner in London whereby, with the help of the British medical authorities, a scheme of co-operation might be devised in regard to the export of mussels from this country.

A question has been raised with regard to the cost. I have already suggested to the Sea Fisheries Association that the principle that should be adopted for the erection of these tanks was to have them in the districts where the industry is important to the people concerned. In Cromane, part of the area in County Kerry that I represent, the people there are altogether dependent for at least six months of the year on this mussel industry. Approximately, 100 families are dependent on the livelihood that is to be gained from it. As far as they are concerned, it is of vital importance that this sterilisation system should be got under way. At the same time, I must say that I realise the Minister has done everything in his power, and that the Department is co-operating with a view to getting over the difficulty experienced there. As I said before, this question has now reached the stage when it is one of national importance. Several areas are concerned. The British medical authorities are not acting as a united body in regard to it, and different opinions are held in different centres. Different areas are controlled by different medical authorities. In view of those difficulties, the question is one for negotiation between the two Governments. Eventually I think that is how the matter will have to be dealt with. While I say that, I think the Department should also take steps with a view to developing a trade with France and Belgium. Perhaps if inquiries were made something could be done in the matter of the export of mussels to those countries. I mention that to the Minister especially in view of the fact that he proposes to introduce legislation at an early date in regard to the inland fisheries.

The question of the inland fisheries is a very important one. I refer to it now because I see an item in the Estimates making provision for a certain sum of money for boards of conservators. I think they are doing very little, if anything at all, in the way of protective duty. So far as the rivers in the area that I come from are concerned, the amount of protective duty that is being done is nil. I think that these boards of conservators are more or less glorified institutions and are of no use. The money that is voted to them is not productive of any results. It is an admitted fact that the protection of the spawning fish in the inland rivers has failed. Our only hope now with regard to the inland fisheries lies in the new Bill which the Minister proposes to bring forward. I am sure it will be of great advantage both to the owners and fishermen concerned.

Mr. McMenamin

The last speaker has raised some interesting issues on this Vote. I propose to deal first with his concluding remarks. Did I understand him correctly to say that the spawning beds have not been protected in the inland rivers? If that is so, I wish to join issue with him on that, because I think that his remarks amount to an undeserved reflection on the Civic Guards and the bailiffs employed by the boards of conservators. Anybody who knows anything about the protection of our rivers must be well aware that in recent years the protection of them shows a marked improvement. Those who remember the conditions that prevailed 20, 30 and 40 years ago as regards poaching, must be well aware that at the present day poaching, in the main, has disappeared, all due to the activities of the bailiffs appointed by the conservators and of the Civic Guards. Therefore what the Deputy said was, in my opinion, a slander on those people. We have got a new issue—this much-discussed tank. I thought it had passed out of public memory altogether, but it has been revived to-night by Deputy Flynn as a national question. This, I suppose, is another new issue for the general election to placate the public down in Kerry. That is another good weapon to use against the I.R.A. in Kerry at the general election. What is the use of talking about a disinfecting tank? The whole thing is a sham. The Minister for Finance will say: "Of course I will not sanction the money for this until the Minister for Agriculture gets a guarantee from the British Government that the fish which have been put into the tank will be admitted as a right into Great Britain." Everybody knows that could not be done. The British Government could not do it. Every local medical officer of health is supreme in his own area with regard to the protection of the members of the community for whom he is responsible. This is merely eyewash. Let us blot it out as nonsense.

It has been stated by some people that our fishing industry is dead, and by others that a huge sum of money should be voted and spent on our fisheries either to win or lose. The reduction of £4,000 for the Sea Fisheries Association answers the whole case. What is the cause of that? That with international quotas everywhere fish cannot be sold except within the shores of the country in which they are landed. Hence it becomes a Departmental and Governmental affair as far as the fishing industry is concerned. There is no use in talking about spending money. Spending money is sheer waste until the Government take action to procure a market for the fish and we can export fish. Have the Government done anything for the industry, and, if they have, what is it? Why are our fishermen not fishing? In Donegal fishermen are not fishing for the same reason that people are leaving the land, because it does not pay. What is the use of buying boats from the Sea Fisheries Association and going to sea and bringing fish ashore when there is no market for them? It would be all right, of course, if you voted public money to pay wages to these fishermen for fishing, and then dump the fish wherever you like. Under the present conditions, to think of putting the industry on an economic basis is ridiculous.

What is the position? Last year Germany took 800,000 barrels of cured herrings from Great Britain. I have said some rather rude things about the Germans and how they should be treated, and I am not ashamed to repeat them. I do not wish to be offensive to the German people, but my way of treating a German would be this—stand on his toe and keep standing on it until he apologises. That is the only way to make him sit up. A statement was published earlier in the year that a quota had been got for our fish in the German market. What quantity of fish has been taken by Germany? What kind of herring are they taking—the winter or autumn or matje herring in May? The quota is from April to June or July. That implies that if they are going to take any herring they are going to take the matje herring. As a matter of fact, they do not want any matje herring in the German market—they want the large herring. Therefore, the quota which we got is entirely useless. That was a very loose bargain to make—in fact, it was no bargain at all.

We are buying a lot of things from Germany. We have been very good to the German nation and spend a lot of money in Germany. Germany got one of the biggest contracts that this small State ever gave away in connection with hydraulic electrical development. They did not get any contract like that from the British Government, and England is a powerful industrial nation and has enormous contracts to give away. I think the Germans should show us some consideration for what we have taken from them. We are still buying large quantities of equipment for our electrical works in Germany, and we are buying lots of other things. Because it suits Herr Hitler to get cheap fats now, he wants butter and fat cattle from us. The German people have been rationed on fats since the middle of December last, and no German citizen can get more than four ounces of fats per week. That is due to the national policy that Herr Hitler is pursuing. Why should we be drawn at the tail of Herr Hitler? Why should not the Minister for Agriculture and his advisers in this matter look after the interests of their citizens just as Herr Hitler is looking after the interests of his citizens? Why did not the Minister demand, when these negotiations were going on, that which would suit the special and particular interests of our citizens?

That is what Herr Hitler is doing in dealing with our Government. If Herr Hitler is not prepared to meet us in that, there should be no business done with him. Our cattle and butter can be sold elsewhere. We have now a market elsewhere for all the cattle we have to sell. Apparently, as far as the Minister is concerned, this whole question revolves round the German market. What is coming out of it? How many barrels of herrings have been sold to Germany this year? Possibly, not more than ten barrels. And that is an international trade agreement!

Along the coast in my constituency there was at one time considerable white fishing, but that has gone, particularly around the peninsula of Inishowen. Of course, Lough Foyle fishing has gone entirely. On the western coast the people complain that the considerable white fishing that they had has gone. There are reasons that I should like to mention, but as I might involve other questions, I shall not do so now. They say that these French trawlers come right in and sweep away the white fishing. I wish the Minister would look into that. As a matter of fact, I was sent a copy of a memorandum that had been sent to the Department and I am sure, after what has been said, that the Department will look into the matter.

Mr. Bartley

I apologise to the Minister for intervening at this stage of the debate. I did not intend to speak, but some things were said by Deputies on the opposite benches to which I want to reply. I listened to quotations that were read from the Official Debates of speeches made by Fianna Fáil Deputies when we were in opposition. I was not a member of the House then, but I wish to endorse everything contained in these speeches. They are just as apropos to-day as they were at that time. With regard to the "Muirchu," I expressed my views about that boat last year. I wish to repeat them now, and to go even further. I know that only for the influence of the Civic Guards in several cases those on the "Muirchu" would have let these poachers go. In my opinion, there is some sinister influence behind the whole matter. Where it rests I do not know. A good many interesting things were said regarding the Sea Fisheries Association, and there were references to the deposits. The Deputy who spoke about the deposit was at one time Minister for Fisheries and was, to a large extent, responsible for the formulation of the rules of that association when it was founded. A certain period of time was laid down within which it was possible to get boats without a deposit, and, when that period was up, payment of the deposit had to be enforced. The then Minister was responsible for that. The committee of the association was worked by people with a certain outlook, and they supplied boats to people with a certain outlook, while parts of the coast were ignored or neglected. I refer particularly to Galway and Mayo. The views of the fishermen were also ignored at that time as to the size of the boats. They were not consulted in that matter.

I wish to make a passing reference to some other matters in which I am interested. One of the things that has been recommended is that all the debts of the Department should be handed over to the Sea Fisheries Association. That association contained an element of good. It did not contain much good, and I am quite satisfied that it was not adequate for the job. In my opinion, it could not succeed owing to the interference of the Department of Fisheries. That Department wants to hand over all the ugly jobs to the association, and, at the same time, wants to maintain its influence over the association. The association is not getting the autonomy to which it is entitled. Deputy Dillon and other Deputies stated that there should be a periodical wiping out of debts and a fresh start made. A similar statement, I think, was made by two Fine Gael Deputies. That suggestion explains certain developments in parts of the country in connection with the deposit. It is quite easy in certain parts to get deposits on the boats, but no further payments are made. Apparently the fishermen have been told that another revision of loans will be brought along periodically—to review them and wipe them out. I think it is not fair of public men—particularly men who are prominent leaders of the Party—to make these statements in regard to loans, and to hold out to the fishermen the hope that there would be periodical revision of the loans. It suggests to them that they can get their boats by paying the minimum and getting away with the rest. In my opinion that proposal suggests an absence of responsibility.

Deputy Lynch stated that the present Government had removed the independence of the fishermen from the cognomen of the Minister. The removal process began when he was Minister, and it was expressed by the formation of the association. The formation of the Sea Fisheries Association was an admission of failure on the part of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. They did not want to be responsible for the fishing industry so they handed it over to a semi-Government co-operative society. That society might have done a little more than it has done, but it was prevented from doing so from the beginning by the muddling interference of the Department. If the Minister had, on this question of loans, a full scrutiny made of the operations of the Revision of Loans Act, 1931, he would be very much surprised at some of the decisions that were made. I invite him to have that scrutiny made. I do not envy the Minister his job. In my opinion, he has a hopeless task. I do not like saying so—I do so reluctantly —but I consider that a large part of the fault rests with the Department over which he presides.

Dr. Ryan

A good deal of nonsense was repeated by certain Deputies, particularly about the German trade agreement. One of the complaints of the Opposition was that Germany could select what she would take from us but that we could not select what we would take from Germany. The opposite is the case. In the German trade agreement the Germans must take a percentage of everything we have but, as far as we are concerned, we may buy what we like from them. That was not how it was put by Deputy Dillon, who was slavishly followed by Deputy McMenamin. I thought Deputy McMenamin knew something about fisheries, but he went on to say that we could only export matje herrings to Germany. On the other hand, Deputy Dillon asked if we could arrange for the export of other herrings to Germany because they were the only things that mattered. We had two Deputies sitting for constituencies in the same country, one entirely ignorant of the question and the other not much better, making different suggestions. I do not think it possible to deal with many of the points which were raised now.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister has plenty of time next week. He is in possession.

Dr. Ryan

I think that would be better. I am quite prepared to go ahead now for a quarter of an hour if the House wishes.

Mr. Morrissey

There is no necessity. The Minister can reply when the Dáil reassembles next week.

Dr. Ryan

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, April 27th.