Vol. 91 No. 9
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £5,452 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1944, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.
I cannot hear the Minister.
That is due to the exodus of some Deputies, but quiet will be restored in a few moments.
I feel there is not much I need say by way of explaining this Estimate to the Dáil. The gross total is £39,062 as against £38,907 for the previous year, an increase of £155. Sub-heads A, B, C, D and E are practically the same as last year. They are the ordinary sub-heads in all Estimates, and make provision for salaries, wages, travelling expenses and incidentals. I do not think they call for any comment whatever. Sub-head E (2) comprises a couple of token items because, as I explained on the main Agricultural Estimate, these international organisations are not working at the moment and, therefore, there is no expenditure except a token amount. Coming to the F sub-heads, which relate specifically to Inland Fisheries, we find in sub-head F (1) an increase of £1,475. This is virtually all payable to local authorities. I have explained year after year that there is provision in this Estimate every year that, where local authorities lose through the new rating provision brought in in 1925—if they lose what amounts to more than 1d. in the £ in their total rate—the difference must be made good out of the Fisheries Estimate of that particular year. The amount has gone up there owing, I presume, to an increase in the rate in some counties.
In regard to the group of G sub-heads, which concern the Sea Fisheries Association, it will be noted that there is a reduction of £2,000 in the Estimate under sub-head G (1). We have had four sub-heads under G up to this, but at the request of the directors of the association we agreed in the Department to combine the former sub-heads G (1) and G (2) into one sub-head to be called sub-head G (1) representing a total grant-in-aid of administration and development; and there is a reduction of £1,000 on what is now sub-head G (2) —repayable advances for the provision of boats and gear. That arises from the fact that it is becoming more and more difficult to purchase fishing gear of any kind. Consequently, the directors have decided not to incur interest charges by borrowing from the Exchequer money which they cannot hope to utilise to advantage.
Sub-head G (3)—(formerly sub-head G (4)—remains the same as last year, for the reason that here again the directors did not see any good reason for engaging on structural development in the existing conditions of high prices and stringency of supply with regard to materials generally. In regard to the H sub-heads—Appropriations-in-aid—there is an improvement on last year's figure of £2,450, which is accounted for by three items—namely, £2,000 increase in the anticipated repayment of advances by the Sea Fisheries Association to the Department; £200 increase in the receipts expected under the Fisheries (Tidal Waters) Acts, 1934 to 1939; and a new item of £400 set down for salmon export licences. Deputies are aware, I am sure, that last year we had to bring in a provision for licences for the export of salmon, owing to regulations made by the Minister for Food on the other side.
Deputies from the maritime counties will have been interested in the figures recently published by the Sea Fisheries Association, indicating the maintenance, during 1942, of the good standard of earnings shown by the members during 1941. One result of this was that, instead of the £10,000 set down last year as the anticipated figure of repayments by the association, the amount actually repaid was £17,186. Many of the fishing boats then on hire-purchase have since been completely cleared from debt. We cannot, however, be over optimistic for the coming year. We feel that if the figure of £12,000 is attained, as set down in the current Estimate, the association will have done very well.
The £400 set down as the expected income from salmon export licences is referable, as I have already mentioned, to the new arrangement introduced by the British Ministry of Food, by which it is necessary to have licensed exporters here. That arrangement also provided for the payment by the Ministry of a fixed seasonal price for all salmon delivered in good condition to the Ministry's order, at one or other of the eight or ten points where duly authorised receiving agents were set up. The Ministry of Food was the sole purchaser and would no undertake to deal individually with all the people who had previously engaged in this trade here, as it would entail too much correspondence, accountancy work and so on, and the Ministry sought to have the number of exporters in this country reduced to about 20, but, after some negotiation, the number was finally agreed at 35. These 35 licensed exporters have to pay certain fees to my Department, which are represented in that sum of £400.
Speaking on the Fisheries Estimate last year, I told Deputies that, although the previous 12 months had been a period of prosperity, comparatively speaking, for our fishermen, I did not propose to claim the credit for that result, save to the extent to which my Department and I had helped our fishermen into a position of being able to avail of their opportunity when it came along, by reason of the fact that they had been already supplied, through the Sea Fisheries Association, with most of the requisite boats and gear. That attitude towards the question I still maintain; but this does not prevent me, in common with the Deputies generally, from expressing gratification thaP our inshore fishermen have in fact risen to the occasion in so marked a fashion.
Our total landings of sea fish for the year 1942 were 371,000 cwts., valued at £504,000, as compared with the figures of 236,000 cwts., valued at £233,000 for 1939, which may be regarded as the last full pre-war year. There is this further important point to be borne in mind, namely, that, whereas, during 1939, there were no less than nine steam trawlers in commission that made in all 259 trips, there were, for the greater part of 1942, no steam trawlers at all in commission here, and for a limited period, only three such vessels. This means that the increase in quantity of fish landed is entirely attributable to the efforts of our inshore fishermen. A pleasing feature of this expansion of their business is that these inshore men are behaving prudently towards their increased earnings, and are making every endeavour to clear themselves of all debt. In this connection, I may mention that some 45 members of the Sea Fisheries Association have, during the past two or three years, cleared the cost of the boats and gear supplied to them on hire purchase, and are now the complete owners of these outfits.
This business-like outlook on the part of individual members is reflected in the global dealings between the association and the Exchequer in respect of moneys borrowed. These borrowings by the association for the provision of boats and gear to members are repayable upon a half-yearly basis. The repayments on that basis were, as at 31st March, 1941, some £16,000 in arrear; as at 31st March, 1942, these arrears had been reduced to about £6,000; and as at 31st March, 1943, these arrears had been completely wiped out. This, I suggest, is as creditable to the fishermen-borrowers as it is satisfactory to the taxpayers whose money had been lent.
Last year I made reference to the increased difficulties in obtaining supplies of fishing gear and also of fittings and replacements for marine motor engines, not to mention increasing stringency with regard to fuel oil. It is unfortunate, but true, that conditions in these respects are worsening; and the directors of the Sea Fisheries Association have urged in their annual report that every fisherman must, in his own interest, conserve to the utmost every net and rope, as well as treat his motor engine with that extra measure of care and attention which may result in prolonging its effective existence for that extra period which is all important, if the boat owner's earnings are to be maintained.
Both my Department and the Department of Supplies have been doing everything possible to ease the situation with regard to nets, ropes and other gear of that character, and we are hoping for at least some limited results; but I want to say candidly that the position with regard to machinery is very serious, because virtually every lathe and every operative in British engineering workshops is now fully occupied on war work. I think it right to add that the directors of the Sea Fisheries Association have continued to pay particular regard to the needs of those small holders in the Gaeltacht to whom the provision of a currach or a trammel net is a matter of much consequence in their domestic economy. Deputies may be interested in the following few figures which deal with facilities provided by the association for these Gaeltacht residents:— Boats, engined, £3,400; boats, unengined, £300; motor engines and parts, £2,700; engineering services, £600; fishing gear: nets, ropes, etc., £3,000; and material for preserving nets, £100.
I think every Deputy, and especially Deputies from the maritime counties, will have been glad to hear of the success of the inshore fishermen during the past year, because I think we must assume that fishery development in this country will depend to a great extent on the inshore fishermen for many years to come. The trawliug adventures which we have had so far have been very transitory in their effects and we have to see what we can develop from the inshore fishermen. It was particularly pleasing to me to hear that the provision made by the Sea Fisheries Association, which was, I suppose, to some extent, my child, has been so successful.
I should have been glad to hear from the Minister what part of the country, if it would not be invidious to ask, it is in which the arrears have been mounting, and where it is that the best attempts have been made to clear off arrears of debts due to the association. I am not saying that at all because I have any inside knowledge of what is happening in Kerry, a against what is happening in Donegal, Connemara or anywhere else and, as a matter of fact, the Minister's answer might give me a bad punch in the wind, so to speak. It would, however, be interesting for Deputies to know where we have the best and the most energetic fishermen, who are making the best use of the advantages provided for them by the Dáil, because it is, of course, the taxpayer who eventually provides the money which finances the Sea Fisheries Association, which, in turn, finances the fishermen in the matter of securing boats, gear, and so on.
I was also glad to hear that the association and the Department are keeping in mind the position with regard to gear, ropes and nets, because it is becoming more and more serious, so far as the fishermen around the coast are concerned. Nets naturally wear out in a comparatively short time, and, by reason of weather hazards and so on, there are occasions when a man may lose several hundred pounds worth of nets in what, to him, is one night's disaster.
The position as far as I can gather from various places, not only in regard to the ordinary nets for herring, mackerel and so on, but also for salmon fishing, is rapidly deteriorating. I do not say that that is in any sense the fault of the Department. I know perfectly well the struggle that has been going on to get the articles released from Britain and Northern Ireland for the benefit of our fishermen. I am glad to learn that the efforts are being continued. I do not know, but I presume that it has been stressed with the British Ministry of Food, who are the persons largely concerned in England, that in order that we may be able to export fish to Britain we must get supplies of gear in the way of nets, ropes, and so on.
There is one case in regard to engines that occurs to me. It is not strictly within the Minister's Department, but the Minister referred to the care that each fisherman will have to take of his engine and engine parts, and so on, as well as of his ordinary gear. There are some engines that break down no matter what care is taken of them. The case I refer to is that of a man who was working his boat with a petrol engine for a number of years. In spite of all the care that he took of it, it eventually became useless. That man had a chance of getting a kerosene engine to instal in his boat. When he applied for a supply of kerosene from the Department of Supplies, they refused to give it to him because he had formerly been in receipt of a petrol ration. They refused to transfer him from petrol to kerosene. The Minister should talk sense to his colleague. The Department of Supplies seem to think that the man merely studied his own convenience, ignoring the fact that he had no option in the matter, that he had either to get out of the business or take the kerosene engine that was available. I think it is absurd on the part of the Department of Supplies to refuse kerosene to that fisherman in such circumstances. Deputy Healy is familiar with the case to which I refer and I am sure he will support me in suggesting to the Minister that the Department of Supplies ought to be prevailed on not to take ridiculous decisions of that kind.
I had hoped the Minister would refer in more detail to inland fisheries. A great many of our inland tourist centres, notably Killarney, are very interested to know what the Minister has in mind in regard to Section 5 of the Fisheries Act, 1939, and when he intends to bring the matter into operation. The Act provides an appointed day in regard to various parts of it, including the sections which deal with the acquisition by the State of a great many valued fisheries, and, in certain cases, the removal of the nets from fresh waters. The tourist centres are firmly convinced that the curtailment of netting in fresh water certainly would add greatly to the revenue they would derive from the tourist angler. I think there is much to be said for their point of view. They also think, and I think, that there is a considerable amount of justification for the view that the acquisition by the State of the tidal fisheries and the several fisheries would eventually improve conditions up the rivers from the angler's point of view. Apart altogether from the development of angling, very many people in the country are interested to know the Minister's intentions with regard to putting into operation the Fisheries Act. I know, of course, that there are very serious financial obstacles at the moment, but I do not know that we can hope to be in any better position to face the matter than we are now. I would like to hear what the Minister Has to say about it.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to certain facts in connection with supplies for onr fishing fleet. I suggest that the Minister should take stops to prevent the sale of whatever Manila and sisal rope are in stock to foreign-going ships' owners, captains or mates. I would also suggest that in making arrangements with Great Britain in connection with flax, there should be a condition that we should get in return a certain measure of rope, twine and netting of all qualities suitable for fishing. I hope the two officers who came from England this week have brought some good news for us. They have been discussing the question of fishing with the authorities there. Surely it is important that we should get some means to catch the fish to export to Britain. I do not think it would create a very awkward situation to put it to them plainly that they should assist us to catch the fish they require. Thcit is purely a matter of business.
As regards engines, surely it is time we used our national workshop at Inchicore to make our own engines and not be dependent on imported engines. We can make any kind of engines. We have the brains. We have the technicians. Surely there are able men in Inchicore and Dundalk who can handle any kind of machinery if they are given the opportunity. I do not wish to interfere with those who have been actively engaged in this propaganda for years, such as Deputy Fionán Lynch, but I would draw attention to the report of 1919 with a view to seeing if there is not some information contained in that report that might help. We must all congratulate our inshore fishermen on their courage in working, sometimes with boats not fitted for the task, and who have rendered such valuable service to the community. As the Minister has truly said, they have paid off their debts after long and bitter years of disappointment.
I would like to refer to the matter I raised on the Estimate for Agriculture, of the £5,000 returned by the committee who were dealing with the foot-and-mouth disease. I want to know what amount has been returned to the Minister's Department of the £5,000, and where does it appear in the accounts of the management committee of five.
It could not appear on this Vote.
It should appear.
Not on Fisheries.
I suggest that the Minister should bring in a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of paying the men who were working in the abattoir the moneys that are lawfully due to them for overtime.
On Fisheries?
No—butchers.
——and, therefore, irrelevant.
The Minister is so modest that we cannot hear him on this side of the House. We can only try to follow him as closely as we can. My hearing is pretty good and I thought he brought in other matters.
Only Fisheries.
On another occasion I will try to get that matter in.
There has been a debate on Agriculture, if my memory deceives me not.
This is also his Department.
As one who is familiar with the fishing trade, I think that the present prosperity in the industry is only temporary. I remember that after the last war the industry was in a very flourishing condition, and yet in the course of ten years the industry almost died out. What happened to the industry in those ten years that affected it so much? After careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the fishing industry was seriously affected by loss of markets, by over-fishing and by unlimited fishing. I consider that the loss of the American market for cured mackerel, and of the continental market for cured herring was the greatest blow ever suffered by the fishing industry in the history of this country. If we are to obtain prosperity for this industry it is absolutely essential that we must regain these markets. How are we to regain these markets? I think the only way in which we can ever regain them is by improving our methods of curing mackerel and herrings. The methods which we adopt at present are old-fashioned; we have the same methods which were used by our grandfathers, and unless we improve upon those methods I can see no hope whatever of regaining those markets. Our greatest rival—Norway—experimented and improved on her methods and was able to produce mackerel and herrings in a more attractive condition for the public and in that way pushed us completely out of the American market. Not alone did she push us out of the continental market but she completely pushed the British out of it also. Therefore, I think the secret of again establishing the fishing industry in a prosperous state is an improvement in our methods of curing.
I admit, of course, that there was less demand for cured mackerel and herring prior to the present war. It is difficult to say why there was less demand. I think it was due to t,he progress made in refrigerating and, therefore, this method must also be considered by us. It is obvious that the present prosperity in the fishing industry is due to the fact that there is a great scarcity of fish in England, and in a short time after the war, when the boats will be again released from war work, we will find it very difficult to sell our surplus fish in England during the summer months. Even during the months of July and August this year we found there was an absolute glut of herrings in England. The glut was so bad that the English boats and, particularly the Scotch boats, were compelled to stay in the harbours for over a week and, when they resumed fishing, they only brought one-third of their nets with them. It is obvious, therefore, to anyone in the trade that in a short time after the war we will see that it will be impossible for us to send fish to England during the summer months. What will we do with our surplus fish during those months? Unless we can adopt some system of preservation by which we can keep the surplus fish for periods of scarcity, I cannot see how there will be any living in the industry for our people. If we can solve that problem. I think we shall solve completely the greatest problem in the fishing industry. We must, therefore, concentrate upon improved methods of curing and refrigeration. I think we should have ice plants set up in our most important fishing areas, and that the question of cold-atorage must be carefully considered.
The present Government must be congratulated upon the good work they have done for the fishing industry through the Sea Fisheries Association. Personally, I have nothing but admiration for the good work which the members of that association have done for the fishermen. I have discussed the association with a number of fishermen in South Kerry and they tell me it is the most successful board ever set up in this country. It has done good work for the fishermen of South Kerry by giving them boats and nets. If the fishermen had not been given these boats and nets some years prior to the war, they would be unable to avail of the present boom in the fishing industry. I think we must admit that the system of giving boats on the hire-purchase system has been very successful when we find that almost all the boats have been paid for.
There is one piece of advice I should like to give to the Minister and that is not to allow the Sea Fisheries Association to be converted into a huge fish firm. There is a tendency in that direction at the present time. I also suggest that all boats supplied by the Government should be sold by public auction. That is a fair method of sale and, if carried out on proper lines, it would bring about an improvement of the system by allowing the fishermen to enter into contracts to sell their fish to certain merchants. There is another way in which I think the fishing industry could be helped, and that is by the Department setting up classes or schools in fishing areas, especially classes of a technical nature in which subjects such as the rudiments of boat navigation would be taught and other classes which would help the fishermen to carry on their calling.
There is one side of the fishing industry which I think must be developed and that is the home market. We do not consume very much fish in this country, and I think it is the duty of the Department to try to encourage people to consume a larger quantity of the fish landed in this country. I think that the reason why that has not been done in the past is that people have to pay too much for the fish. I believe that there is too much of a difference between the price paid to the fishermen and the price paid by the consumer. If we are to encourage our people to eat more fish, we must at least give it to them at a reasonable price.
Deputy Lynch referred to the question of oil for fishermen. The case which he cited is a genuine one, as the man in question has this boat, which he got from the Department, since 1939 and since then has fished continually with the boat. Through no fault of his own, he was compelled to change his engine. Yet the Department of Supplies refused this man a ration of oil so that he is unemployed at present and the other members of his crew cannot get berths on other boats. The Minister should use his influence with the Department of Supplies so that this man may get some oil. I am also familiar with another case of fishermen who have a grievance. Three or four of them got together and managed to buy a boat and gear. When they applied for a ration of oil, they were informed by the Department of Supplies that they could not get it because they were not getting oil at a certain date. This poor man never heard of such a regulation. I discussed the question with the oil merchants of Cahirciveen and they all informed me that they never heard of such a regulation until this man was refused oil. If the Department have regulations like that, it is very hard to penalise these poor fishermen and this man certainly should get some oil.
There is also a side of the industry which was very much neglected until it was assisted by the Sea Fisheries Association—that is, the shell fishing industry. There is a considerable quantity of mussels being sent to England at the present time and the fact that we are in a position to supply mussels is due to the good work of the Sea Fisheries Association. This mussel tank at Cromane, County Kerry, is a great success and the fishermen must remember that, even at the present time, the health authorities in such towns as Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield have not allowed unpurified mussels to be sold. If, at a period of scarcity such as this, that is not allowed, there is no question of unpurified mussels being allowed on sale after the war. I admit that the fishermen have grievances, but these could be rectified easily at the present time. There are 60 boats, that is, 120 men, employed, at this tank for six months of the year, and for the three days that they are working each week they receive about £2 5s. a week.
The railway companies and shipping companies are not doing their utmost for the fishing industry and are not giving it a square deal. It often happens that the railway company is not in a position to take large quantities of ice from Cork to Valentia Harbour and Dingle. That is a serious matter for the trade, as, owing to the neglect of the railway company to provide proper facilities, the fish suppliers are compelled to keep fish over to the following day. I need not add that, in periods of warm weather, that has a serious effect on the trade, and it means also that the fishermen receive a reduced price for their fish. Recently, the railway company increased the carriage for ice from Cork to Valentia Harbour by over 64 per cent. I think tiie railway company were entitled, to some increase, but 64 per cent. is absolutely absurd.
The merchants still have a more serious grievance. For years past it has been the custom in Valentia Harbour—which is undoubtedly the most important station on this coast— to send large quantities of fish by an early train which, at present, gets into Dublin, I think, at 6 or 6.30. About a year and a half ago, the railway company or the shipping company made an order that, unless the fish arrived at the North Wall before 5.30, it would not be allowed out on the night boat. This appears to be a most absurd rule, in view of the fact that the boat does not leave the North Wall until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. As a result, the fish suppliers are compelled to send it by a late train, which arrives at about 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. It must arrive in Dublin and bo loaded that night. It costs about 5/- to ice 1 cwt. of fish. Naturally, when the fish buyers must re-ice the fish, the fishermen receive a lower price. Worse than that, in periods of warm weather, there is a great danger of the fish arriving in England in very poor condition. If it were sent by the morning train from Valentia Harbour on Tuesday morning, it would be sold in England on Thursday; but by sending it by the late train it would not be sold until Friday. Anyone familiar with the trade knows quite well that the fish would be suitable for sale on Thursday, while it would not be suitable on Friday.
The merchants at Valentia Harbour have suffered substantial losses over this ridiculous rule. I have discussed this question with some of the Labour Deputies, particularly with Deputy Larkin, who has assured me that the dockers at Dublin would do everything in their power to help the fishing industry by loading fish which arrives in Dublin by the 6.30 train—provided, of course, that they are paid overtime. The merchants are so anxious to ship by the morning train that they made an offer to the Department to pay an extra fee for loading the fish at those hours. This request was refused. As far as I can see, there is no use in trying to get those concessions which are vital to the trade unless our own Minister fights for us.
There is another question which has often been debated in this House—that is, the question of preventing foreign trawlers from fishing within our territorial waters. I consider that it is essential that the three-mile limit be extended, as three miles does not afford sufficient protection from the damage done to inshore fisheries by foreign trawlers. There are over 28 trawlers fishing out of Dingle, and I need not mention what the earnings of those trawlers mean, nor how many families they support. It is obvious to anyone knowing anything about the fishing industry that these men fish almost exclusively in Dingle Bay and St. Finian's Bay. If foreign trawlers can come in and scrape the coast clear of fish, it is impossible for those men to make a living. As happened in the 'thirties, they will be unable to continue and we will see the fish lying lotting on the shores, as the men are unable to obtain a living in the industry. The Minister should put up a strong case when international agreements arc being made, to see that the limit is extended. I understand that Norway objects to any boat coming within eight miles and I think Iceland requires a distance of 20 miles.
A separate Department of Fisheries should be set up in this country. It is a ridiculous rule that the most important industry, agriculture, and the second most important, fisheries, should be under the management of one Minister. Agriculture has very serious problems of its own, and I have no doubt that the Minister in charge of them would have his hands full in trying to rectify them. The fishing industry also has very serious problems, peculiar to its trade, and if a Minister were appointed to deal with them he would have a hard job, indeed, to try to counteract the great problems which will affect this industry after the war.
Deputy Healy rather surprised me when he asked what we would do with the surplus fish, particularly during the summer months. He answered his own question immediately afterwards, when he talked about the development of the home market. For years, a number of Deputies, apart entirely from the Deputies who are concerned with the maritime counties, have been advocating that the Department should do something to develop the home market. I would go as far as saying it is not even a question of the surplus alone, as every Deputy from inland areas will admit that you cannot get fish at all. There are many country towns, large and small, in this State where fish can never be bought.
It is perfectly obvious that, with the possible demand and possible markets we have available here and with the great number of days of fast and abstinence, there is an exceptionally large market in our own State for the surplus fish which Deputy Healy and his colleagues want to save. Possibly, the Minister cannot do anything during the emergency, but when this war is over whatever Minister is in charge should do something to develop the home market and provide for a better distribution of fish to centres like that. If it is possible to distribute the fish, it will be bought and it is not quite a question of price at all.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the question of assessment of fishely rates. When the owner of land who, say, has a fishery on the River Blackwater, is assessed for the first time for fishery rates, he becomes aware of that only when he is served with the demand note for the payment of the rates. If he believes that he is not liable for the rates, that the fishery is useless, that it could not be fished or let, he is in the awkward position that when he gets the demand note his period for appealing against the assessment has expired. The assessment has actually been made in the office the previous March and possibly he does not get the demand note until July or August. His period for appealing has expired and, whether rightly or wrongly assessed, he has to pay that year's rates and he must wait until the following March to enter an appeal against the assessment. Where new assessments are being made in cases like that, I suggest the Department should insist on the parties concerned issuing a statement that they intend to make a rate in respect of a particular fishery and the person liable for the rate should get notice as soon as possible, with ample time to permit that person to appeal. I have had three cases in that connection this year and in each case all that could be done was to pay the rate assessed for this year, no matter whether it was right or wrong, and these people will have to wait until next year to lodge an appeal.
As the Minister is no doubt aware, in most of the inland rivers the fishery rights were reserved to the old landlords at the time of the Land Purchase Acts. The position is that most of the old landlords have left the country, or their estates have dwindled and they have no longer an interest in the fisheries. At the moment there are numbers of people buying these fihhcrieh from the representatives of the old landlords, thus creating a problem that is not going to be so nice in the near future. If you take a farmer living on the side of the Blackwater as an example, he has land on the river bank for half a mile. He does not own the fishing rights; they were retained by the old landlords. The old landlords did not bother about them. At the present time there are many people in the country who were not interested in fishing before; possibly they are people who have come up in the world recently and made money, and they are buying the fishing rights from the representatives of the old landlords.
If it were my own case I am satisfied that I would have quite as much objection to these people walking over my land to fish the Blackwater as I would have to the representatives of the old landlords, or even the old landlords themselves. If the State does not wish to take over these fishing rights, I think the man who owns the land through which the river runs ought to be given them. It is ridiculous to permit those other people, many of whom have been out of the country for years, to sell the fishing rights to a club or an association. It means that the farmer who pays the rent and rates is faced with a new set of trespassers and he cannot deal with them. If the State cannot take them over or let them in a proper manner, I think fishery rights of that sort should 6e given to the people who own the land on each side of the river.
There is one other matter about which I wish to i remind the Minister. Time and again, as long as I have been a member of this House, this matter has been raised and until something is done about it, it will continue to be raised. I wish the Minister would make up his mind to do something about a construction that causes very considerable damage to the salmon fishing on the Blackwater, and that is the Lismore weir. Why something has not been done about it, is beyond me. It is utterly ridiculous that a company representing a particular estate can take tonb of salmon out of the river at that weir—they pull them out of it. There are people paying £2 for rod licences up the river and they do not get a sporting chance of getting fish. They should be given some consideration. I have always had the feeling that as far as the Lismore weir is concerned it would be much better, from the point of view of fishing in general along the Blackwater, if it were done away with. The position is that one estate is making a lot of money out of the salmon fishing in the Blackwater at the expense of everyone else. Whatever powers the Minister requires to deal with a matter like that, or to deal with ex-landlords selling their fishing rights to individuals, I think, in order to preserve the rights of the inland fisheries for the people best entitled to them, that the Minister ought to seek such powers, and I am sure the House will be prepared to give them to him.
I am concerned with the position of the fishermen on the upper stretches of the Shannon, particularly at Lough Ree. It appears that the Electricity Supply Board has taken over the fishery rights in all cases and has compensated a great many of the people concerned, with the exception of the people in this particular locality. These are mostly small farmers, who live a very precarious life and try to earn something to keep themselves and their little families going. They believe they have been victimised. There was a period when they could fish 1,000 to 1,500 hooks—they are what are known as long-line fishermen. They work on a co-operative basis. At the present time their activities are curtailed by the board and they are not permitted to use more than 300 to 500 hooks. I should like the Minister to inquire into this matter and do something for these poor people, who are unable to support their families on the amount of fish that they now catch. They tell me that 500 hooks are a very small number and if they use one hook over the 500 they are liable to be brought to court, where their licence is either suspended or endorsed. I want the position in regard to those poor people clarified. It is a very serious position for them.
There are 30 or perhaps 40 families between Lough llee and Lough Derg. These people might have three or four acres of land and they would like to know what is, going to happen to them in regard to their fishing activities. I have seen two licences that were issued for 1943. The people concerned had to get those licences to enable them to fish for what is referred to as rough fish. That never happened before and these people are afraid that they are going to lose whatever rights they have. When the Minister for Industry and Commerce was introducing an amending Bill to the 1935 Act he said, with regard to the position of these people, that it was hard to know what rights they possessed; in other words, who were the owners.
I suggest to the Minister that he should allow these people much more latitude. They are kept inside their own waters. That means that they must fish near their own land. If they go down the river as they were accustomed to, some 30 or 40 miles, they are prosecuted. At the moment they must pay a fairly heavy licence fee. They are in the position that they cannot get yarn for the purpose of making or repairing nets. If the nets shrink they are liable to be brought to court, I am told. These people are law-abiding citizens, possibly the most law-abiding in the Twenty-Six Counties. I hope the Minister will give their case sympathetic consideration, allow them to fish more hooks and place them in a position so that they will not have to face the poverty line. That is all I have to say. Probably I have not said enough, but at the same time I have brought those matters to the notice of the Minister, and I have every hope and confidence that he will look into them.
I want to make an appeal on behalf of the fishermen on the Slaney, that they would be allowed to cast their nets a month earlier than at present. I know that the Minister made a promise to them some time ago. I am not asking for petrol or for paraffin, but am himply making this request for the Slaney fishermen, who fish from Ferrycarrig up. They have also asked me to see that they will get nets, rope and twine and everything else that they require before the season opens. There are over 300 of them depending on what they get out of the fishing on the Slaney from Ferrycarrig up to this side of Oylegate. The Minister knows the river as well as I do. If they are granted this concession, it will give them the opportunity of catching some of the fish that are going to the upper reaches of the Slaney, and that are being captured by people who come over here from England to enjoy the fishing.
In speaking on this Vote I suffer under two disadvantages. The first is that I did not grasp all the Minister said when introducing the Vote. The second is that I have not been provided with the Book of Estimates which would enable me to follow to some extent what the Minister had to say in regard to some of the subheads of the Vote. I think it will be universally agreed that when this war is over there will be a considerable development in the tourist industry. Amongst the most acceptable and profitable kind of visitor who has been coming to this country for a long number of years may be classed the sportsman, the man who hunts, fishes or shoots.
There are just a few comments I have to make on the Vote. I have had considerable experience of salmon and trout fishing, and my view, in relation to this matter of policing our rivers, streams and lakes, is that the position will be unsatisfactory until such time as the Minister agrees to establish a river police or a better system of bailiffing than we have at present. We all know that the present system is absurd, that, in fact, it is a perfect scream. That is quite evident from recent incidents that have occurred all over the country. Unless you have a uniformed section of the Gárda Síochána, for preference, to look after the rivers and streams, as they should be looked after, then I say you are going to put an end to the fishing industry as we know it in this country. As one who has fished all over the country, north, south, east and west I can say that the fishing has deteriorated considerably within the last 20 or 30 years. Visiting sportsmen have gone away with the same impression.
I had intended referring to the weir at Lismore, but that matter has already been dealt with by another Deputy. Notwithstanding what has been done with the assistance of tile Minister's Department by way of providing hatcheries, it must be confessed that our rivers are showing a decreasing number of salmon and trout each year. Quite recently the Minister sent some of his inspectors to a part of East Cork. I understand that evidence was given there in relation to a portion of a very small river that used to be very prolific in salmon and trout. I refer to the little river between Campfire bridge and Janeville, near Tallow. I gathered from the Minister's statement that this year the sum of over £1,700 more was being allocated than last year to the inland fisheries. In regard to this little river —I speak subject to correction and the information which the Minister has received from his inspectors—I am told that there were something like 700 odd salmon taken out of that short stretch of water in a very brief period. Anybody who knows anything at all about fishing will agree with me that if that is the case the river will very soon become exhausted of all fish. It is from that part of the river that the salmon go up to spawn. It is from there that the Blackwater, which everybody knows is famous for large catches of salmon, is fed. It would be still more famous were it not for the imprisonment of those fish through the agency of the big weir already referred to. I know that the Minister is serious in endeavouring to protect our fisheries. I would ask him to have uniformed guards on the rivers for protection purposes. The bailiffs that we have on the various streams at present might not as well be there at all.
I have not a great deal of interest in the sea fisheries. There is, however, one matter that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. I know a young man who resigned a very good post in order to take up sea fishing. He purchased a yawl and used a sail for a considerable period. He did very well for a time, and made a bit of money. Then he bought a marine engine. I do not know whether it was a Diesel engine or not. He found, however, that when working under sail he was unable to land his catch in time, and consequently, it had to be dumped in the sea. I got into touch with the Sea Fisheries Association. I must say that they were very kind and directed this man where he would be likely to get an engine. Through the good offices of the Sea Fisheries Association, he eventually succeeded in getting an engine, but then he was refused petrol on the grounds that he had not a licence since 1941. I agree, of course, that there is a war on, and that petrol has to be rationed. I do submit, however, that something should be done to support the national effort of this young man in trying to win food from the sea. Every effort should be made to provide him with petrol, so that he may be enabled to land the fish in good condition.
I do not propose to say any more, except to point out that it would be one of the most popular things the Minister could do. I know that the usual excuses about its involving more expenditure and a higher Budget will be put forward, but, at the same time, the fishing industry, and the inshore fishing industry particularly, is a national asset and, as such, should receive the favourable consideration of the Minister along the lines I have indicated.
The Minister was in the very happy position to-day of being able to paint a very pleasing picture, so far as the position of the fishing industry is concerned. I hope he will not follow the advice of the Deputy from Kerry who suggested that a separate Department in connection with fisheries should be set up. I think we have enough Departments at present, and the setting up of a separate Department would involve very increased expenditure, with possibly no good results. The present system is good enough and the results of the past year bear out that opinion.
I was pleased to learn from the Minister's statement that the income derived from this year's landings of fish was in the region of £500,000. One might think that that was, to a very large extent, due to the increased price paid for fish, but that is not so, because, in addition to the increase in the sum realised, there was also a great increase, as compared with former years, in the quantity of fish landed, so much so that the men engaged in the industry were in a position to meet all their debts. I remember that in former years the Minister had to bewail the fact that, owing to the poor season through which they had passed, the fishermen were not in a position to repay the loans which they had got from the Sea Fisheries Association.
The state of affairs at present is very pleasing, and I hope it will continue. If it is to continue, the Department will have to exert itself a little more in the matter of securing tackle, especially for the inshore fishermen. The Minister hinted at the difficult position which has arisen, and which may become more acute in the future, in regard to the provision of nets for the inshore fishermen. There are large numbers of them engaged along the east coast and I know personally that last year and especially this year, they lost very large quantities of fish, owing to the poor state of their nets, due to the fact that they could not replace them or even get twine to repair them. I think the Minister should use every endeavour of his Department to secure the provision of new nets, or, alternatively, a good supply of material in the form of netting twine which will enable these men to make the nets themselves. Of course they would prefer to get the nets readymade, but there may be some difficulty in that regard, although I do not think that there should be any great difficulty, seeing that we are supplying the British with most of the catches, especially of salmon and there should be a quid pro quo.
While I do not deny for a moment that the Minister is using any and every means to secure these nets. I still think that there should be a little extra push, by the Minister and his officials pointing out to the British Government how it may be that the fishermen will find it impossible to carry on next year, unless they get new nets or proper supplies of twine in time to enable them to mend their nets and possibly to make their own nets. That is one of the difficulties which seem to be causing great annoyance and anxiety to the fishermen engaged in this type of fishing.
With regard to shell fish, I think the Deputy from Kerry referred to the good work already done by the Department in setting up what is known as a purification tank along the Kerry coast. Some years ago, Deputies pointed out how essential it was that a tank of a similar kind should be erected on the east coast to cater for those engaged in the mussel industry near Drogheda and Dundalk, and down as far as Greenore and Omeath. This industry has been the means of providing useful work and giving a fairly good income to many families in Dundalk and Drogheda, especially at a time of the year, the winter, when it is most essential that they should have this work.
As the Minister is aware, an announcement came from the Department on the far side that no more mussels would be accepted from this country unless they had first passed through a purification tank. I think that some cases of ptomaine poisoning in England were attributed to shell fish exported from this country. Be that as it may, the export has been stopped, and it would be a great boon if a tank were erected on the east coast to cater for the industry there. The price prevailing at the moment is very remunerative, and every encouragement should be given to these men to engage wholeheartedly in this industry and I hope the Minister will give that an encouragement.
I know that there are difficulties created by the emergency in the way of getting materials, but it would be worth while to speed up this part of the work of the Sea Fisheries Association. Above and beyond that, I urge the Minister to lose no time in endeavouring to have something done in regard to nets, and, at the earliest moment, to issue a statement which will encourage the fishermen and let them know that they will not next year be in the same position as this year— in fear and trembling, not knowing whether they would br able to carry on their calling or not. I hope the Minister will be fortunate enough to arrive at an agreement with the British Government to have these very great benefits extended to the fishermen, and particularly the inshore fishermen.
In connection with post-war development of hydroelectric schemes on some of the rivers, how far is the Minister in touch with the Departments which are preparing these schemes; how far will they add to the costs of the conservators; and will they make any change in the fishing rights? In other words, how far is the Minister's Department alive to what will arise in the post-war period and how far is it prepared to meet it?
Tá rud amháin agam le rá ar an gceist seo. Deirim anois go bhfuil iomdha rialacha ann a chuir stad le hiascaireacht. Molaim go dtabharfar cead do na daoine fén dtuaith iasc d'fháil ins na haibhne agus ins na locha i rith an chogaidb. Tá an bia gann annsin agus beidh sé an-ghann i rith an earraigh. agus i rith an tsamhradh. Ní i gcóir spóirt iascaireacht an lae indiu. Tá an bagún gann agus is dócha go mbeidh mairtfheoil agus caoirfheoil gann i rith an earraigh agus i rith an tsamhraidh. Dá bhrí sin, molaim go gcuirfear stad leis na rialacha a bhaineas le hiascaireacht agus go leigfear do na daoine iasc fháil ins na haibhne agus ins na locha. Deirim freisin go nglanfar na srothanna agus na haibhne agus na locha má tógtar an t-iasc garbh asta. Molaim go leigfear do na daoine iad fháil i gcóir bidh le haghaidh na ndaoine ar fud na tíre.
In conjunction with Deputy Coburn, I would again like to call the Minister's attention to the unfortunate position of the mussel industry in Drogheda and Dundalk. I am, of course, aware of the causes of that. It seems a difficult matter to deal with. A purification tank was set up in Kerry for the purpose of experiment, I understand, to see if that type of sterilisation was acceptable on the British market. I understand that the regulations set out that the mussels must not be taken from sewerage rivers. Unfortunately, the Boyne is a sewerage river and there is a very large amount of mussels on the mouth of the Boyne. I wonder if it would be possible to transplant or transfer some of these mussels to adjacent rivers that are not sewerage rivers so as to satisfy the sanitary authorities in towns in Great Britain as to the possibility of sterilising these mussels for the British market. The British market was a very important market from the point of view of these fishermen who collected mussels and sold them on that market. It was done, as Deputy Coburn pointed out, during the winter months. That industry has now completely collapsed owing to the fact that the British authorities will not accept the mussels unless they are passed through one of these sterilisation or purification tanks. I fear the difficulty will be that the Boyne is a sewerage river, but I think it is possible to transfer the mussels. That might cost something but if they were transferred to Laytown it might get over the difficulty that now arises.
It seems extraordinary that in this country, within nine or 10 or 12 miles from the sea, in Clogherhead, once a good fishing centre, fish are not now procurable. Even in the town of Navan it is extremely difficult to get fish. The people in the Gaeltacht colony in Rathcarne, most of whom were accustomed to catching fish, tell me they have never seen any fish since they came there. I remember that, not so many years ago, the country roads were frequented by people selling fish. That, of course, was a great advantage to the country people. I understand that fish is an extremely healthy food. For some reason or other, in recent years, that industry seems to have disappeared. Before the war I did come across an occasional belated fishmonger on the bus coming from Dublin, having speculated in a box of herrings that had originally come from Clogherhead or Donegal. There seems to be a system that compels the fish to come from Clogherhead and Donegal and other places to be sold on the Dublin market and then returned to the place from which it came.
I think we should make some effort to deal with the marketing of fish. It is a very sad commentary that more fish is not available to the community, especially in the country districts. I suppose the difficulty is due to the process of distribution. It may be due to the cornering of markets by groups. It happened in the potato trade and it almost happened in the fruit industry. Some organisation in the City of Dublin corners a particular commodity, gets the profit and distributes it throughout the country at such a price that it is almost impossible to buy it. I think some effort should be made to examine the position with a view to securing that the fishermen of Clogherhead will get their fish distributed in the country districts, as it was many years ago, with great benefit to the workers and to the people in country towns. It may be financially impossible or it may be that the vested interests have become so powerful that they cannot be uprooted. Every effort should be made in this matter because, if we are to maintain the fishing industry, it will not be on the basis of an export market that will be highly competitive after the war, but on the basis of the home market which we develop for the benefit of the people of the country. I understand from the figures given by the Minister, and from other sources, that there is very decided improvement in the fishing industry but I cannot say that there is any improvement so far as distribution to the rural community is concerned.
It is incumbent upon the Minister, I think we all agree, to protect the livelihood of the men engaged in the fishing industry. There is just one point I wish to make, that is, to support the view expressed by Deputy Coburn in reference to the supply of nets. The Minister has rightly stressed the necessity for preserving gear and getting the maximum amount of benefit out of its use. We know that this gear is becoming very scarce and it has been stated, I think correctly, particularly in regard to Louth, that many men are leaving the fishing industry owing to the impossibility of obtaining the gear necessary to pursue that industry. If this flight from the fisheries continues, there will be little necessity for a Department of Fisheries, as there will be no fishermen left. Now is the time, I think, to take particular notice of the dire need of the fishing industry. Mr. Larkin has suggested—and I think his suggestion should be considered by the Minister— that the export of flax to the British market might be conditioned on a return of some of the cordage and nets necessary for the fishing industry in this country. It is a reciprocal arrangement, mutually beneficial. I think the Minister should do all he possibly can to ensure that the raw material for the netting industry is secured for this country. In addition, he might consider the possibility, if not of establishing, an industry for the manufacture of fishing nets, of giving some aid through his Department, by taking counsel with those who are interested in this matter, giving them advice or assistance in whatever way he can, so that some emergency industry, at least, might be established which would provide the fishermen with the nets and make it possible for them to mend their own nets.
If that is done, I think we will be able to stop the flight of these fishermen to England, a flight from the industry which will have very bad effects later on. It may not be a matter of incurring any great expenditure on the part of the Department, and it will be productive of exceedingly good results.
There is just one or two observations I should like to make. The Minister and I represent the same constituency and I am sure he will look with favour upon the suggestion I have to make. The fishing industry is more important than people realise, unless they look very closely into the matter. Dealing with it from an historical point of view and looking back over some generations, I think we will find that the fishing industry is about to disappear in this country. The only way it can be kept in existence is not only by keeping those who have the skill at work, but by training others to follow them. The difficulty at the moment is the question of supplies. My criticism is that the Minister has not taken a sufficiently strong line with the Department of Supplies. I speak from personal experience, from letters I have received and representations that have been made to me. I know that the fishermen in County Wexford are not getting sufficient supplies of fuel and other commodities in order to enable them to carry on their work. I do not suggest that we have an enormous amount of fuel to go around, but I should like to see the Minister taking a stronger line with the other Departments so that the fishermen will get sufficient supplies of various kinds, such as nets and fuel. So far as I am concerned the principal complaint is with regard to fuel. It is important from two points of view that these supplies should be maintained. It is important, first of all, from the point of view of catching fish at the present time. It is equally important, taking a very long view, that a very essential skilled group of men should continue in their employment and pass on their skill to others who come after them. Our country, surrounded as it is by the sea, should be able to take wealth from the sea and, unless we keep our people in gainful employment on the sea, the skill that existed in the past and which exists to a certain extent at present will disappear completely. Apart altogether from the question of getting increasing supplies of fish at the moment, for the purpose of the industry it is essential that we should provide them with the raw material to carry on their work.
I think the Minister will be in sympathy with me in regard to these statements. I see other Deputies from County Wexford here and I am sure they are also in sympathy with what I have to say in regard to these matters. We in Wexford are in the extraordinary position that, unlike many other counties, we are bordered on two sides by the sea. Over 50 per cent. of our boundary is the sea. We are only getting a very small amount of the wealth that is lying at our door. I know that when the Minister talks with other Departments concerned he is up against obstacles and difficulties, but J should like him to be a little more insistent so that the Wexford fishermen can get their fair share of the supplies that are going.
I should like to stress the point made by Deputy O'Reilly with regard to the marketing of fish. It is an extraordinary thing that many small seaboard towns in Ireland, even though a good deal of fish is passing through, often find themselves without a supply of fish. It appears to me that the greater quantity of the fish caught all over Ireland is being sent to Dublin. Almost everything is centralised in Dublin nowadays. I ask the Minister to try to secure that some of the fish caught in towns like Wexford, Waterford, and others on the southeast coast is made available for the people living in these towns. Sometimes it is almost impossible to get fish in these small towns, even though a good deal of fish is landed at the people's doors.
I should also like to add something to what Deputy Esmonde has said in connection with the matter of supplies. I think there is undue discrimination in some cases. Some fishermen find it quite easy to get kerosene, others find it very difficult, and some are not in a position to get it at all. I urge on the Minister the necessity for making representations to the Department of Supplies with a view to seeing that the kerosene is distributed fairly. Last year people who fish for salmon on the river Slaney experienced a great scarcity of material for making nets, such as ropes and things of that kind. The result was that a great number of people who were in the habit of fishing each year had to remain off the river. I know that the Department of Supplies made efforts to secure some of these materials, but I do not know what the result was. If the fishing industry is not to become extinct altogether, it is necessary that the Fisheries Department and the Department of Supplies should make special efforts to secure materials for the making of nets. I should like to emphasise again the question of the marketing and handling of fish in Dublin and in the other cities and towns. In a great many cases you find some of these towns in which fish is landed without fish on days when the people are looking for it.
When the 1999 Act was introduced, I took particular interest in it and discussed many sections of it in this House. I wish to draw attention to one or two points I raised at that particular time, and which I am emphasising now, including the netting of salmon at the mouths of rivers and also in the Lakes of Killarney. The by-law at present gives two clear consecutive d&ys as closed days in the week. I strongly suggest, as I did in 1939, that three consecutive days be counted as closed days. I also made the point, which has been put up by the Killarney Anglers' Association, that all netting in fresh water should cease from 1st July to 1st January.
Anyone standing in Killorglin and taking particular note of the method of netting would say it is the mystery of mysteries how a salmon gets up to Killarney lakes. I will show later how you can get no exposure from the bailiffs on these particular points, as the bailiffs are elected by the net holders and the man who possesses a rod licence has no possibility of having a say in the selection of bailiffs. The nets are so manipulated that the salmon have got to find an opening, and it is a mystery how they can find that particular opening. I strongly suggest to the Minister that the only way the Department can get a clear conception of what is happening there is to send down an inspector, who will be paid to stay there for the two or three months of the year, just to see how the system works out. The nets should be lifted for the month of July, as it is in that month that the young salmon—what we call peal—are taken and, from the point of view of spawning, they are the most productive and the healthiest, producing the healthiest spawn. I do not mind what views are held by the Department here about that. It is against the laws of nature for the spawn from a fish weighing 24 lbs., which is an old fish, to be as healthy as the spawn from a fish weighing 4 lbs. What happens in July is that a huge number of young fish weighing 3 to 5 lbs. is taken from the lakes, at a particular time when the price of fish is at its lowest.
To show that there is over-netting is rather difficult, for the following reasons: The salmon spawns in the river in its natural bed, the young salmon stays in the river for two years, at the end of which he proceeds to the sea and spends from three to five years there and then returns to the river exactly where he was spawned. You are dealing with a period of two years in the river and three to five in the sea, that is five to seven years. If you lift the nets altogether this year, you will have to wait six or seven years to prove the effect, because the spawn that is hatched this year would not come back to the river in the form of salmon for six or seven years. I suggest to the Department that it is worth while to carry out an experiment to show the effect of lifting the nets, even though you might have to wait six or seven years. The amount of netting going on in Killarney at the present time is anything but healthy. Under the 1939 Act, when the nets are lifted from the fresh water, compensation has to be paid on the return from the fish captured for the three previous years. The Minister has given the assurance that he is going to deal with the lifting of nets from fresh water when the war ends, and until then the net holders are trying to make hay, so there is wholesale netting going on at present. That will be felt in six or seven years' time.
In 1939 I raised a point about the method of election of the boards of conservators. Tim Healy on one occasion was invited to a certain convention and it happened to be so "packed" that he sent back a post card and said the invitation reminded him very much of the invitation of the spider to the fly. The rod holder is in the very same position, when he is invited to a meeting for the selection of a board of conservators. Under the 1939 Act and previous Acts, the net holder has such a power of manipulating the votes that it is utterly and absolutely impossible for the rod holder to get control of tlio board. I appeal to the Minister again, in this democratic age, to realise that the least that should be done is to change the method of election. What happened in Galway is a disgrace, but I can tell the Minister definitely that the same thing is happening in many other parts of the country. I strongly suggest the repeal of the particular section dealing with the method of election of a board of conservators.
The Sea Fisheries Association is doing excellent work, beyond yea or nay, and deserves a compliment from the House. They have certainly been very businesslike in their methods and have done everything possible to provide boats for the sea fishers. I would ask an extension of the funds, to enable the boatmen in Killarney and other lakes to get some boats built, as some of the boats in Killarney certainly should be replaced. I know no fund from which they can draw, and I strongly suggest that a certain sum of money be set aside to enable inland fishermen to purchase boats and carry on their business.
I again stress the over-netting that is taking place and the necessity of lifting the nets in July. It is no use in putting up the argument to me that we have generally the same return of salmon year after year, neither is it any use saying that the net holders, if they are over-netting, are reducing their income for future years. They realise they will not be there in two or three years' time, so the netting at present on the Killarney lakes and the mouth of the Laune is a disgrace.
There is one other point, in which Deputy Linehan will bear me out—that is, the method of construction of the King's Gap, or Queen's Gap, whichever you call it. It is altogether wrong from the legal point of view. Lismore is a brilliant illustration of that. I do not know how the fish can possibly get up the river. Some of the most natural beds—good sandy beds, with a good flow of water—are in the reaches of the Blackwatcr, and you can count on fingers and toes the number of fish that go up there. The reason is that they arc netted to such an extent, and also that the King's Clap and Queen's Gap are falsely constructed from the point of view of the anglers.
I would draw the Minister's attention to one point in connection with the deleterious effect on the River Feale, owing to the complete lack of responsibility shown in not putting a gap at Listowel into repair. There are several interests concerned, and it is a very old story, which has been before the Department time after time. My information is that the anglers' association there contributed a certain amount, in order to make their quota towards having this necessary work put in hands. The Limerick Board of Conservators have declined to accept the offer of the anglers' association because, I understand, of the failure of a mill-owner to contribute anything towards that work. Where you have so many interests of that type concerned, and where they are allowed to fight over the issue, it is a matter in which the Department ought to intervene; they ought to take a hand in the game and see that the fish population in that river is not allowed to deteriorate year after year, simply because someone has failed to do his job.
I should like the Minister to investigate the position of the Kiver Feale, owing to the collapse of the pass at Latchford's. A decent effort has been made by the anglers' association. I cannot speak of the attitude of the conservators; they have refused to give any contribution to supplement what the anglers have contributed, because of the failure of the third party to contribute anything. I am asking a fourth party to see to it that the salmon in the Feale will get a chance to propagate. This is a fine old river and it is a serious thing to see anyone standing in the way. I trust that the Minister will attend to this matter without delay.
I desire to support the plea that has been made to the Minister with regard to the erection of a purification tank for mussels on the east coast. I believe that such a construction is most essential, and I trust the Minister will give the matter serious consideration. There are large numbers of fishermen along the coast from Dundalk to Drogheda and down into Meath interested in a project of this kind. They have seen many lean years since, at the hand of the law, an end was put to the industry in that area. At one time a thriving trade was carried on in mussels, but now the people are not allowed to carry on the industry, and many of them are in a bad way. I should like the Minister to give this matter his serious consideration. There are large numbers of people in Drogheda, Baltray and Dundalk anxious to know the Minister's intention in connection with this matter.
I quite agree with Deputy O'Reilly that there should be a better distribution of fish in the inland counties. It is a very difficult thing just now for any man in a midland town to buy even a herring. I think the centralisation of this business in Dublin is wrong. The farmers who live in the vicinity of towns like Trim or Navan or Kells are unable to purchase fish. I think the distribution of fish among the inland towns should receive more consideration.
I should like to mention that on the upper reaches of the Boyne there are derelict weirs, and they have been. derelict for quite a number of years. In the past the weirs were properly looked after, but that does not now hold and the position is that the fish cannot get up to the spawning beds. Then again, there is a vast amount of flooding in the tributaries of the Boyne. I ask the Minister to see that these weirs are removed. If they are, benefits will accrue to the people whose lands are flooded and to the fishing industay, because the fish will be able to reach the spawning beds. It is too soon to criticise the fishing industry generally, because it is being re-organised and some years must elapse before we can observe the results of the re-organisation. I am very anxious that the Minister should give serious consideration to the erection of a mussel purification tank on the east coast—say, in Meath.
Deputy Finian Lynch asked for information as to where the payments from fishermen have been very good and in what centres the payments have not Leen so good. I am not in a position to give very definite information. I can only say that the centre of Dingle is, perhaps, the best we have in the fishing industry and the fishermen there have been very successful in repaying their loans. There have been other good centres, too.
Another point raised had reference to supplies of various kinds from Great Britain. Naturally, Deputies are anxious that the fishermen should be supplied with what they want in the way of fuel oil for their engines and nets and ropes and other things they require. We have been doing everything we possibly could do to get those supplies, not only during the recent visit of some of our officials to London, but even before that. We have been getting a certain supply of materials for nets and a small supply of other articles, such as ropes. As Deputies know, we are getting a small, an insufficient, supply of fuel oil of various kinds.
There was a case cited by Deputy Lynch which gives me an opportunity of explaining the position. The Minister for Supplies has a limited quantity of kerosene to distribute and, in spite of what Deputy Esmonde said— he felt that I was not making a sufficient impression on the Minister for Supplies—I think all the kerosene the Minister has is going, somehow or other to the rural areas. The three big users of kerosene are, agriculturists for their power machinery, fishermen for their boats, and rural householders for their lighting. If I am to make a greater impression, as Deputy Esmonde would like, on the Minister for Supplies, I can only do so by asking him to give less to agriculture and more to fisheries, or to give less for lighting in rural houses and give more to fisheries. It is not so easy to hold the balance fairly between all classes.
I think that, on the whole, the Minister for Supplies has done as well as any man could do under all the circumstances. There is no kerosene to come from any other source, so far as I know. It is being used in the way I have indicated, and we cannot do any better. The Minister for Supplies, it, is true, on various occasions refused to give kerosene to a man with a new boat, and the argument he used was that the existing fishermen are not getting enough, and, therefore, he does riot see that there would be any justice in bringing new persons into the business. I think that is right, where he is dealing with a new person. You have the cases of men—I know of them myself—who were out of the fishing business for four or five years, and they are now coming back when they think there is something to be got out of it. I think it is much better to support the men who have continued in the business rather than allow new men to come in and in that way cut down the supplies to the existing fishermen.
I think the case referred to by Deputy Lynch, and also by Deputy Healy, is quite a different one. That is the case where a fisherman had petrol and where his engine, as a petrol engine, is no longer in use and he happened to get a paraffin engine and was refused supplies. I think an individual case like that might be pushed forward with the Department of Supplies to see if it could not be reconsidered.
Will the Minister help?
Yes, certainly. Deputy Lynch asked when we intended to put the Act into operation. When putting the Act through in 1939 we had in mind that we might, within two or three years, commence making the necessary Orders to acquire the fisheries throughout the country. The emergency, of course, has made a difference, and although we have had to postpone this matter I should say, perhaps, indefinitely, I think it is a thing that we should not put off too long. We will go into it again and see if we should not take some action. That refers to acquisition, to the removal of nets from fresh waters, and such other matters as were referred to by Deputies.
Deputy Larkin talked about our flax going to England, and asked what we were getting in return. There is one thing we get in return and that is binder twine. We got 1,000 tons of binder twine and 1,000 tons of sisal with which to make binder twine. We also got material with which to make ropes and cord, and part of that will be used for the benefit of fishermen. I do not know if it would be possible to get marine engines made at Inchicore. I cannot say if the possibility of that was explored, but I do know that in my Department the possibility of getting existing engines repaired was explored very fully and it was found impossible to get certain repairs done to some of our engines in any workshop in this country. There does appear to be some insurmountable difficulty, so far as Inchicore works are concerned, in regard to marine engines. I agree with Deputy Healy that, when the war is over, we shall have to make bigger and better efforts in regard to the fishing industry.
I have often stated in this House that the problem appears to be divided into three parts. The first part concerns the protection of our fisheries so as not to allow anybody but our own fishermen to get the fish. That we had brought under fairly successful control before the war. Since the war, there has been no such thing as poaching. The second part concerns the provision of equipment to catch the fish for our own fishermen. That has been very well done, as has been acknowledged from all parts of the House, by the Sea Fisheries Association. It will be better done when the war is over and when they are in a better position to get engines and other supplies. The third part concerns the better marketing of fish, including refrigeration, as mentioned by Deputy Healy. The point was made by some Deputies that it is a pity that all our fish goes to Dublin. Deputy O'Reilly spoke of fish being taken from the Louth coast up to Dublin and coming back to midland towns within 30 or 40 miles of where they were caught. This does appear a difficult question but it is, apparently, necessary to have a big. reservoir or pool of fish if we are to keep things going at all. In Great Britain, where they have about 40,000,000 of a population, and fish being landed at different places, they have foul big markets from which practically all the fish arc distributed. Under that system, fish may be brought past certain towns, up to one of those receiving centres, and then be brought back to a town which they had passed on the way. It does appear to be essential to have some sort of pool or reservoir to make fish-marketing successful. I was glad that there was no criticism of the Sea Fisheries Association. We are inclined to forget an organisation of this kind in which men work without being paid, but they deserve our thanks for making this undertaking a success. I am sure that they would be only too glad to consider any suggestions made here with regard to the marketing of fish in inland towns. It must, however, be remembered that the Sea Fisheries Association lost some thousands of pounds in connection with these inland markets and the opening up of new markets.
It is not an easy problem by any means. The fact that we have fast days seems to be against us rather than in our favour. On days of abstinence practically everybody wants fish, and practically nobody wants fish on any other day. Fishermen are very discouraged if they get a big catch on Friday or Saturday and find that they cannot sell it easily. It is rather hard to expect them to continue in the business and fish for a particular day's. market. These are difficulties with which we shall have to deal.
Reference was made to the question of education. Classes were established in a few centres and we shall see if there is any hope of getting more done in that way and of getting better support for the classes. The question of freight on the railways is not one for me. When anything like that is sent to my Department, we endeavour, so far as possible, to get the matter righted through the Department of Industry and Commerce. That is all we can do in this case. Deputy Linehan referred to the question of fishery rates. I have taken a note of his point and I shall see if something can be done to have people notified in time to make an appeal whenever a fishery rate is raised. The question of fisheries retained by landlords is one which comes under the Land Acts. Under certain of the Land Acts, the landlords were left their fishery rights without any conditions being attached. They were quite free to sell those rights. As the law stands, we cannot interfere. I have, however, sympathy with the Deputy's view, and I think that we should, perhaps, do something about it. It is a matter which can be considered when we are bringing in further legislation in that connection.
If the question of Lismore weir were settled, the debate on this Estimate would be considerably shortened. The question of Lismore weir always leads to a long discussion. It cannot be correct to say, as Deputy Linehan and Deputy F. Crowley contended, that there are no salmon going up. If that were so, the proprietors could not continue to take tons and tons of salmon. They must be going up to propagate.
Deputy Crowley gave you an idea of the time they were getting them.
They are not catching them in the close season.
It is clear that, although the weir is there, the number of salmon is not appreciably decreasing because, if it were, the proprietors could not be getting tons and tons of salmon. I am not defending private ownership of weirs. As Deputies know, we brought in a Bill in 1939, which became an Act, to deal with these matters. We must be allowed a little time before we proceed to implement that Act. Deputy Carter and Deputy Dockrell referred to the interference of the Electricity Supply Board with fisheries. A Bill is being prepared at present in the Department of Industry and Commerce dealing with the further development of rivers for the Generation of electric power. The Department of Industry and Commerce will consult with my Department regarding the safeguards which we think would be right and fair in all the circumstances. We shall have an opportunity then of trying to persuade the Minister for Industry and Commerce to insert whatever safeguards we think are necessary.
The question of the River Slaney was raised. That comes up in every debate practically. The suggestion was to allow the net men to extend their period of netting. Under the law, I have no power to do a thing like that. The only power I have is to order a public inquiry, and at it a prima facie case must be made that, in the interests of the fisheries—remember now I am talking about the present law—and not in the interests of the net men, it would be right and wise to extend the period. From time to time we do hold these public inquiries to see if the circumstances have changed. At the last public inquiry that was held, no evidence was produced to make the prima facie case that I have referred to. That does not prove at all that conditions may not be changing, but in cases where they may be changing we hold these public inquiries from time to time to see if it is possible to make a change.
I have already dealt with the question of nets and ropes. I want to tell Deputy O'Leary that we are doing the best we can in getting these things, and that their distribution is as equitable as we can get it done. Somebody said that we should get new nets, and, if not new nets, twine to make new nets, and that if we are not able to do that, we should get twine to mend the old nets. I am afraid we are reduced in most cases to the third alternative, that is, we have to depend on twine for mending the old nets.
Deputy Anthony spoke of the protection of the rivers. When I brought in the 1939 Bill, which dealt, more or less, with the ownership of the estuarine fisheries and weirs, I said that I expected to have before the Dáil within a few years a consolidation of all the laws dealing with the inland fisheries, and that then I expected to be able to deal with such questions as the composition and method of election of boards of conservators and the protection of the rivers. That is still the position. Some progress is being made, not very much, I am afraid, but still some progress is being made towards a consolidation of the existing laws. When that is completed, I hope to be able to bring that Bill before the Dáil. Having placed before the Dáil what the position is which that consolidation will show, we can then discuss whatever changes may be considered necessary for the future government of the inland fisheries.
I do not think that what Deputy Anthony claimed is true, that there is a persistent decrease in the number of fish in our rivers. The number for 1942 was well above the average. It showed that there was quite a good supply of fish, and indicated that matters are not getting worse. Deputy Kennedy advocated that we should relax our restrictions with regard to giving permission to people to fish, because we should look on the matter now not so much as one of sport, but rather as a question of procuring food. It would be a very dangerous thing to withdraw all restrictions. I am afraid that we will have to carry on as we are, even though fish is a very important food.
With regard to the mussels in the Boyne, which was raised by certain Deputies, I explained here before, when we iwere building the purification tank at Cromane in the County Kerry, that we looked upon it largely as an experiment. I think everybody will agree that the experiment has been very successful, and that we would probably be justified in going ahead with the building of more purification tanks. There is another aspect of it. As well as being an experiment, we built it for the purpose of getting experience. I think it would be well to get three or four years' experience of the working of that tank so that we may learn from our experts what are the advantages and what are the defects of the particular system that we have there. We may, by waiting for three or four years, be able to make considerable improvement in other tanks that we may build in the future. We are always impatient, I know, in regard to matters of this kind, but these tanks are going to be there for centuries to come. Therefore, I think it would be a pity not to wait for a few years in order to have the best possible results before us when we do come to put them together.
Deputy Connolly spoke of the flight from the fisheries. We have the flight from the land. I would like to make the same point on this Estimate that I made on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, and that is that we are actually catching more fish now than we did six or seven years ago. If there are less men fishing, it means that the men who are fishing are getting a very much better livelihood, and from that point of view it is all to the good. I admit that it would, of course, be better still if we could have more men engaged in the fishing industry, all earning at least as much as those who have remained are earning, say, this year. I have already pointed out the difficulty of providing extra equipment or extra fuel oil and I am afraid there is no hope of encouraging others to come into the fishing industry at the moment.
Deputy Crowley raised the point of extending the week-end period so as to allow more salmon up. There may be something to be said for that. He then raised a highly controversial subject, namely, what particular type of salmon is best for spawning. I do not want to go into that. I think it could be better debated at, say, the Biological Society of University College, Dublin, or some such place, but I do not think, you will get two biologists or two rodsmen who will ever agree on that particular subject. He said that if we tried this experiment it would take six or seven years to find out the result. We do not mind that in the Fisheries Department. When I went to the Forestry Department I was told that they were doing some experiments. When I asked about the results they told me they would tell me the result in 150 years' time, and could not tell me sooner. Deputy Crowley complained of a lack of democracy in our methods of electing boards of conservators. I think his grievance was that the netsmen were getting more representation than they were entitled to as compared with the rodsmen. Most people would take the view that we are following the dictates of democracy by giving the netsmen fair representation, but, strictly speaking, of course Deputy Crowley is probably right, that if we are giving them more than fair representation the thing is no longer democratic. As I have said, the mode of election of boards of conservators and this whole question will have to be considered when the new Bill comes up.
Did the Minister hear what happened in Galway?
I heard what happened in Galway. The position is that the law is a very old law. It has been slightly amended on two occasions during the last 20 years, but, fundamentally, it is the same, and the position is that the owners of the fisheries have big representation, the netsmen have representation, and so have the rodsmen. I must say that at first sight it looks a fair system, that those people should meet together and discuss how best the fisheries should be carried on with regard to protection and so on. In a particular case, however, the general rule may have its defects and we may get very absurd results as the Galway people have claimed.
Mainly because the wrong people own the fisheries?
That may be. I do not know the people concerned, so I cannot say whether they are the wrong people or not. However, that whole matter of conservators, protection and so on will, I expect, come up for discussion in the Dáil in the course of a year or two.
Will the Minister state if the Department has considered the question of canning herrings and mackerel? I saw in the papers recently where it had been successfully done in Canada.
The question has been considered on a number of occasions by the Sea Fisheries Association, and I think Deputies will realise that it is very difficult to carry on any industry in which you must be prepared to deal with an article once in a way. Now and again there is a big catch of hering or mackerel, and it is very hard to have the equipment and staff to deal with it when there is not something like continuous employment.
