Vol. 158 No. 9
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £105,420 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.
The Estimate for Fisheries for 1956-57 is for a net sum of £158,420 of which £53,000 has been granted by way of Vote on Account, leaving £105,420 to be voted to complete the Estimate as stated in the Money Resolution.
As shown in the printed Estimates, the amount required for 1956-57 represents a net increase of £20,305 compared with 1955-56. In this connection I might point out that the total original net Estimate for 1955-56 was £116,640, but during the course of the year a Supplementary Estimate was passed providing £20,500 to complete the payment of compensation to the one-time occupants of the several fishery in the tidal waters of the River Erne, and a sum of £975 was paid from the Vote for remuneration in respect of Civil Service salary increases properly chargeable to Vote for Fisheries. Taking these two items into account the net increase of £20,305 already referred to is arrived at.
To help the House in considering the Estimate I will refer briefly to the significant increases and decreases under the various sub-heads compared with last year. Under sub-head A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, there is an increase of £2,025 which is due to increased salaries payable to the staff of Fisheries Branch. Sub-head E (1), Scientific Investigations, shows an increase of £805. Taking into account slight variations on two sub-divisions under the sub-head, this increase is due to increased provision for shellfish experiments. More intensive work is planned for the current year in relation to the development of oyster culture, particularly in Clew Bay. This work has been going on for some years in conjunction with An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, but my Department is now assuming responsibility for the work in its entirety. Seed oysters have been planted in successive years and there is some evidence that this work is meeting with some success. It is intended that it should continue in the hope that eventually an oyster fishery of some importance will be re-established in the area.
Under sub-head F (1), Grants to Boards of Conservators and Local Authorities, etc., there is a net increase of £6,200. Sub-division 1 of this sub-head provides for the statutory recoupment to local authorities of losses arising from the exemption of fisheries from local rates under the Fisheries Act, 1925. The recoupment by the State is related to the current local rates and as these show a tendency to rise it is considered essential to cover increases by the provision of £24,000 or £4,000 more than the sum provided last year. An additional £250 is provided under sub-division 2 of the sub-head to meet increased payments under the Fisheries (Tidal Waters) Act, 1934, to Ballyshannon and Letterkenny Boards of Conservators to make good the loss of fishery rates formerly payable on the estuarine fisheries in the areas covered by these boards which are affected by that Act. This expenditure is offset to some extent—£750—by receipts from special local licences which must be taken out by fishermen proposing to fish in the estuarine fisheries concerned. Under sub-division 4, £14,000 is included compared with £12,000 last year to provide grants to boards of conservators to supplement their incomes from local sources, mainly licence duties and fishery rates. I may say that the grants made last year were supplemented by £2,650 which remained in the Salmon Conservancy Fund. The provision this year therefore represents a decrease of £650 on the total sum available last year.
Sub-head F (6) which provides a Grant-in-Aid of £10,500 for the Inland Fisheries Trust shows an increase of £500 compared with 1955-56. The trust, like all other bodies, is finding its expenses increasing from year to year and this extra £500 is considered necessary to enable the very valuable work being done by the trust to be continued without any serious retrenchment. Sub-head G, Grant-in-Aid of Administration and Development of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara under which £71,930 is set down in the Estimate, shows an increase of £29,545 compared with last year. The administration provision of £28,430 is £405 more than in 1956. The sum towards development works included in the Estimate is £43,500 compared with £14,350 last year, i.e., an increase of £29,140. The provision for administration expenses covers mainly the salaries of administrative and technical staff employed by the board. It also includes a sum of £4,400 to cover travelling expenses of the board's staff as well as the fees and travelling expenses of the members of the board and the travelling expenses of members of An Comhlachas Iascaigh Mhara. The individual items which go to make up the sum included (£43,000) for development works are as follows — £5,000 is needed for the replacement of certain machinery and the acquisition of lifting equipment to deal with very heavy loads now being handled at the board's boatyards. Such machinery and equipment is necessary to improve efficiency at the yards and also to avoid the possibility of accidents in the handling of very heavy items of machinery such as marine engines, etc. Local installations for the better handling of fish are being provided as follows — freezing equipment at Dublin, £3,250; ice plant and cold store at Castletownbere, £5,000; quick freeze department at Schull, £8,100; quick freeze department and ice plant at Cahirciveen, £10,100; ice plant at Killybegs, £5,000; refrigerated transport, £2,100; fish filleting machines at Galway and Killybegs, £4,200; also is included a small sum of £750 to cover small miscellaneous schemes of development. These works at local centres which I have mentioned form part of a long-term programme of capital works of development upon which the board has embarked with my approval. They are intended to improve the quality of fish marketed and to stabilise supplies as far as possible by making it possible to avoid sending all the fish landed to the markets immediately it is landed without regard to the conditions that exist on the markets.
The sum that I have mentioned in respect of each work represents only the amount that is being provided from the Exchequer. These grants do not represent the total cost of these works as it is intended to supplement them by repayable advances from the Central Fund to the total amount of £48,700. Many of the projects mentioned are to a considerable extent of a pioneering nature and on that account it is not thought reasonable that the board should be asked, to repay the full cost involved. The projects will, however, return an income to the board in due course and the portion of the cost provided by way of advances represents what is considered a reasonable sum for repayment by the board. In addition to the items which I have referred to there are three other works which the board are undertaking during the current financial year and which do not involve the payment of any grants from this Vote. It is intended to provide repayable advances for these works which are — Office premises on the Dublin Fish Market, £2,400; Storage accommodation for gear and equipment and workshops at Dublin, £9,600, and the provision of a fish processing station at Galway £27,500. The total cost of this station at Galway is expected to be about £55,000, and the balance of the cost or 50 per cent. is being made available as a grant from the National Development Fund. This work has been going ahead for some months past. Considerable progress has been made with the construction of the buildings and half of the grant available from the National Development Fund has been already drawn. The main item among the advances which it is hoped to make to the board during the current financial year will be, of course, the sum required by them to finance their scheme for the supply of boats and gear on hire purchase to fishermen. The board have estimated that the total sum they will require in the current year for that purpose will be £157,000. Forty-five thousand pounds however will become available to the board from cash sales, prepayments on boats issued and certain repayments by the fishermen, thus leaving the sum required as an advance from the Exchequer at £112,000. Almost all the boats now being issued by the board are of the larger type fitted with the most modern equipment, and the board hope to be able to make available about 12 boats of that type during the year together with keeping up supplies of fishing gear to fishermen who cannot provide the same from their own resources.
In connection with the figures I have mentioned as advances needed by the board during the current year, I must point out that no firm decision can be made as to the availability of these sums until further provision is made by legislation for advances to the board from the Central Fund. Under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, advances to a total of £500,000 were authorised by the Oireachtas. At the end of the financial year on the 31st March, 1956, the balance remaining unissued out of this sum was £68,388. This balance would be insufficient to meet the advances I have already referred to and further legislation is required to authorise advances in excess of the £500,000 specified in the Act of 1952. A Bill for this purpose is in course of preparation and will, I hope, be shortly before the House. If and when the Bill is enacted, final consideration will be given to the question of issuing the advances sought by the board in the current financial year. To sum up the position as to the financial requirements of the board during the current year, we must take the following items which I have already referred to into consideration — Grants for administration and development, £71,930 to be provided on this Estimate; advances from the Central Fund for development works, including a sum of £15,000 carried over from last year, £103,200; and for the provision of boats and gear on hire purchase, £112,000. Adding the balance of the grant, £13,750, due from the National Development Fund in respect of the Galway premises, we get a final total of £300,870.
So far I have dealt with the increases of some significance which have taken place on various sub-heads. The only decrease of any significance is that the sub-head which provided last year under a Supplementary Estimate for the payment of £20,500 as balance of compensation in respect of the onetime several fishery in the tidal waters of the River Erne is this year blank. Taking increases and decreases and allowing for a reduction in Appropriations-in-Aid of £1,047, the net increase in the Estimate is £20,305.
What I have said so far has been concerned with the finances of the Estimate, but I am sure the House would wish to hear something from me as to the general condition of the fishing industry. I am glad to be able to say that the quantity and value of fish landed in 1955 show a considerable increase over the corresponding figures for 1954. The quantity of sea fish, excluding shellfish, landed in 1955 was 303,519 cwt. or 48,805 cwt. more than in 1954. The value of these landings at £686,195 was £50,393 more than in 1954. As to shellfish, it is not possible to express as a global figure the quantity landed as some classes were dealt with by weight and others by count. Significant improvement in landings can, however, be recorded as the total value of all shellfish landed in 1955 at £196,103 showed an increase of £41,578. Taking all classes of fish together the total value of landings in 1955 was £882,298 compared with £790,327 in 1954.
Apart from the satisfaction that there is in the increase in total landings, there are other satisfactory features. It is Government policy that the fishing industry should be based to the greatest extent possible on the inshore fishermen. The word "inshore" I may say very often gives rise to misconception in the mind of the public. It is often thought that the word implies fishing very close to the shore and that the outer waters are left untouched by our fishermen. This is not so as with the type of boat, ranging usually between 56 and 60 ft. overall with first class equipment, now being used by our fishermen, fishing activities are not confined to the grounds close to the shore. Our fishermen are going quite long distances to sea and it is not uncommon that they stay overnight on fishing grounds some distance from the coast. In 1955 the total quantity of demersal fish, i.e. the varieties which are usually found at some depth, landed by inshore fishermen reached 185,764 cwt. This figure shows an increase on the corresponding figure for 1954 and is a continuation of the steady increase in the landings of such fish by our inshore fishermen over several years. The balance of the landings of demersal fish 8,152 cwt. was made by the three fishing vessels operated by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.
Another important factor in the overall increase in landings in 1955 was the very welcome increase of almost 50 per cent. in the landings of herring. Mackerel landings which with the herring landings constituted by far the major portion of the fish landed here up to some 20 years ago, again proved disappointing in 1955. During 1955 only a very small quantity of fresh and frozen fish was imported to meet whatever shortages arose from time to time due to the incidence of bad weather. The position is that we have now reached the stage that supplies of fish from home landings are adequate to meet the existing demand and from that situation arises the question as to whether with the continued increase in catching power with the issue of further boats to fishermen, the situation will come about that supply will exceed demand and thereby cause marketing difficulties for the fishermen. This possibility is fully realised and steps are being taken to expand and improve the distribution of fish throughout the country. I have already mentioned several works which An Bord Iascaigh Mhara intend to carry out with a view to improvement of distribution. Ice making plants and fish storage premises are being established at several points around the coast. A fish processing station is already being operated by the board at Killybegs and another such station is in course of construction at Galway. The board is also considering the possibility of establishing inland distribution centres and one such depot established at Limerick is doing good business.
These efforts are concerned mainly with distribution of fish for the table. There is another aspect of the question, the disposal of landings of pelagic fish (mainly herring and mackerel) which are made very often in very heavy quantities during a comparatively short season and which cannot be absorbed by what might be termed the week-to-week trade. The only solution available to us in the absence of a revival on a large scale of the salt curing trade which cleared such heavy landings up to the early thirties, is the provision of reduction plants for the manufacture of fishmeal. This matter has been under consideration and, as the House will probably remember, Bord Iascaigh Mhara has had a pilot plant in operation at Killybegs for some time. Much useful information and experience has been gained from the working of this plant and not the least important result has been that it has demonstrated to the local fishermen what an advantage even a small plant of that type can be in providing an outlet for heavy landings of any particular type of fish which could not be disposed of through the ordinary marketing arrangements.
The pilot plant has served its purpose in Killybegs and I am glad to be able to inform the House that a group of businessmen with experience of fishmeal manufacture on a large scale on the Continent have decided to seek facilities for the establishment of a full commercial size fishmeal factory at Killybegs. Such a factory would, I need hardly say, be a very welcome step in the further development of the fishing industry not alone at Killybegs but generally along the Donegal and neighbouring coasts. The need for fishmeal factories on other parts of the coast is also becoming evident, and it is considered that the full expansion of the industry at certain places, particularly where herring and mackerel are usually available in large quantities, will need such in course of time. I am not able to say at present the localities in which such development works will be undertaken but I can assure the fishermen whose interests are vitally involved that the whole question of fishmeal manufacture is getting the closest consideration.
I have already referred to the expansion of our fishing fleet and the increased landings which are resulting therefrom from year to year. Most of the new additional fishing vessels acquired by our fishermen are provided under the scheme of hire purchase operated by Bord Iascaigh Mhara. In this connection the following figures will be of interest. During the year ended 31st March last 15 fishing boats were provided under the scheme and seven boats were re-engined. Eleven of the boats supplied were new craft. Nine vessels, each of which was 50 ft. overall were built in the board's own boatyards, two were built in privately-owned yards, one being 45 ft. and the other 55 ft. overall. Four secondhand boats (one, 63 ft., two, 50 ft. and one, 35 ft.) were acquired by the board and issued to fishermen. In addition to this work, the four yards operated by the board carried out a considerable amount of repair work for fishermen.
The demand for boats is well up to the board's capacity to supply and it is a gratifying feature that young men who have acquired training and experience as crew members on the modern type vessels now in use around our coasts are coming forward for boats from which they feel confident of being able to secure a satisfactory livelihood. The other main activity engaged in by the board is the sale of fish, and it is satisfactory to note that the sales in 1955-56 at 160,762 cwt. showed an increase of 52,779 cwt. over last year. The value of the sales in the year ended 31st March, 1956, reached a total of £508,236. These figures do not include business done by the board in the marketing of shellfish and, in this connection, a pleasing feature of the board's activities is the very large increase from 8,234 cwt. in the year 1954-55 to 17,224 cwt. in the year 1955-56 in the quantity of mussels which was passed through the board's purification tank at Cromane, County Kerry. This I hope is an indication of the permanent revival of this fishery which has been in a more or less depressed state for many years.
There is just one other matter in connection with the board's activities which I think calls for reference, and that is the record of the three fishing vessels operated by the board. Last year, I made reference to these vessels when the Estimates were before the House and pointed out that their record up to then had not been satisfactory inasmuch as considerable financial loss had accrued from their operations. The engines in these vessels have given much trouble and much fishing time has been lost on that account. These troubles have continued during the past financial year and one of the vessels has had to be fitted with a new engine. It would seem from the unsatisfactory service being given by the engine in the other two boats that the installation of new engines in these cases also must be considered. In view of the heavy loss already sustained on these vessels, I am asking the board for a complete survey of the vessels activities to date and for their views as to their future working. I consider that further losses on the operation of these vessels cannot be tolerated and when I have the views of the board before me, I will make a decision as to their future.
There is another body in the scheme of fisheries administration as well as the board to which I would like to make some reference on this occasion. The body I refer to is An Comhlachas Iascaigh Mhara, which was set up under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952. This body was intended to be an advisory body, and it was designed to be representative of the various sections of the fishing industry. It has no executive functions and is provided with considerable financial help each year from State funds through the board. Travelling and subsistence expenses to the members are paid and accommodation for meetings is provided by the board, and furthermore secretarial services can be provided by the board on terms to be agreed between the two bodies, if the comhlachas so desires.
During the past four years the board has paid out a sum of about £1,600 towards the expenses of the comhlachas. So far the comhlachas has secured only a very small membership particularly of retailers and fishermen, and cannot properly be said to be fairly representative of the industry as a whole. Its income from membership recruited directly has been very small, and would have been altogether inadequate to meet expenses. In addition to the help from State funds the comhlachas has also had the advantage of quite a considerable sum of membership moneys which were transferred to it from the funds of the old Sea Fisheries Association, but despite all the help given to it the position now is that the comhlachas is in financial difficulties.
The committee came to me recently and informed me that they must be given further financial assistance by the State as they are unable to carry on. I informed them that in view of the provisions made to help them by the payment of their travelling expenses, etc., that I could not give any hope that a special grant could be made to them to finance secretarial and such expenses. I consider that the financial help given to the comhlachas has been fair and reasonable and I maintain that with the proper approach to their duties they should be able to recruit such membership from the various sections of the industry which would provide them, through membership fees, with whatever additional funds they require.
Apparently the committee of the comhlachas does no look at the matter in that way. They have established a most expensive secretariat, having regard to the nature of their functions, and it is obvious that they have entered into commitments, without due regard to their financial resources. Their financial position is now difficult and I understand that certain members of the committee are endeavouring to get that body as a whole to resign. They hope to have this development blazoned forth in the newspapers with material supplied by themselves and carefully composed to give the impression that my Department and the board have driven them to their decision.
I know that there are on the committee of the association individuals whose dearest wish is the removal of the board from all business in the marketing of fish, purely in their own selfish interest. If the journal published by the comhlachas can be taken as expressive of the views of the committee as a whole, it can be assumed that all the members of the committee are antagonistic to the board, but I do not believe that the fishermen's representatives could be so. The journal has, so far as I can recollect, never printed the slightest measure of praise for anything the board has done. It has, time after time, sought to discredit the board and to create the impression that it is an impost on the industry which prevents progress, rather than promotes it.
This propaganda may mislead some people but the test to be applied to the services which the board renders is to ascertain the views of the fishermen in the matter. I have done this as far as possible, and every group of fishermen that I have consulted has been emphatic in the view that the board must be retained. Not alone do they regard the board's service in the provision of boats and gear as indispensable but they also regard the board's marketing services as being something which is vital to their best interests.
It has often been stated as Government policy that the interests of the whole-time inshore fishermen whose members, I am glad to say are steadily increasing, are paramount as far as the Fishery Authority is concerned among the various interests in the fishing industry. That policy remains and will continue, and I tell those people who are hoping to disrupt the comhlachas that if they think by so doing that they will frustrate that policy, that they are greatly mistaken.
The board was established as a body to help fishermen in every way possible, and despite the attempts being made to have it removed or its activities curbed by selfish sectional interests in the fishing industry, it will be maintained as long as the fishermen want it.
I have said that the fishermen's interests are paramount but this is not to say that other interests in the fishing industry, such as wholesale, retail and curing sections are not of very great importance too. This was realised when the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952, was being framed and for the first time in the history of the industry in this country a consultative and advisory body representative of all the sections of the industry was brought into being. I believe, despite our disappointments so far, that such a body could serve a very useful purpose providing that all sections came together in the proper spirit to contribute as best they could to the welfare of the industry as a whole. So far, I am afraid that purely sectional interests have been pushed too much to the forefront.
The present committee of the comhlachas have not approached their functions, in my opinion, in the proper way, but I am not without hope that we will eventually have a committee which will realise that they have a serious responsibility and can do valuable work for the industry by spending some time in hard thinking and producing well-considered and detailed proposals and suggestions for the better development of the industry.
So far I have been dealing with the sea-fishing side of the industry, and I will now give the House some information as to the general position during the year 1955 of the other side of the industry, i.e., inland fisheries. These fisheries consist of the salmon, sea trout and eel fisheries which are carried on on a commercial scale and, as regards salmon and sea trout, constitute as well a very important sporting and tourist attraction. In addition, we have extensive brown trout and coarse fish waters which are also a valuable asset both as a source of much pleasure to our own people and as an attraction from abroad. My Department can only collect statistics, however, in respect of salmon, sea trout and eels, as these are the only classes of fish taken in our inland waters subject to fishing licences or to any regulations as to furnishing of returns of catch.
The statistics collected for 1955 reveal that the total catch of salmon by all methods in that year was 1,261,402 lb. valued at £363,788, compared with 1,976,677 lb. valued at £500,243 for the previous year. The catch of sea trout at 73,201 lb. valued at £10,824, showed a slight improvement on the previous year for which the corresponding figures were 70,854 lb. and £10,800.
The 1955 season was characterised by fairly heavy rainfall up to the end of June, after which there was a prolonged drought lasting in many areas to the end of the season. This gave unfavourable conditions for estuarine netting until about the end of June when the major portion of the season had passed. Runs of all groups of spring fish were not good in 1955. Grilse, as in 1953 and 1954, again turned up much later than hoped for, thus reducing the catch very considerably.
The total catch of salmon in 1955 was distributed as to the various methods of capture as follows — draft nets, 48 per cent.; drift nets, 19 per cent; rod and line, 19 per cent.; stake nets, etc., 14 per cent. The percentage for rod and line has shown a steady increase in recent years, and although the total catch of salmon in 1955 was 37 per cent. less than in 1954, the actual number of salmon taken on the rod was only reduced by about 14 per cent. The total number of rod licences issued in 1955, excluding endorsements, was 6,604, an increase of 409 licences on those of 1954. This increase in a continuation of the upper trend in the number of rod licences taken out for several years past.
As to the eel fisheries, the year 1955 showed a considerable improvement. The catch was 187,177 lb. valued at £19,433 compared with 143,372 lb. valued at £17,993 for 1954. Water conditions during 1955 were generally favourable for eel fishing.
As to brown trout and what are generally known as coarse fish, the main development that has taken place can I think be attributed to the very fine work that is being done by the Inland Fisheries Trust in co-operation as regards some waters with Bórd Failte. Local angling clubs and committees are also very active in many places and much valuable work is being done through local enthusiasm and the realisation that local waters cannot be properly developed without a considerable measure of local effort. The work which has been in progress for some years past is bearing fruit as is evidenced by the fact that we have now frequent reports of attractive fishing being available in many waters which up to a few years ago were in a state of serious neglect and in which the trout population had been reduced to insignificant proportions.
The trust in the beginning of its career adopted what I think was a very wise policy when they decided that its operations in any particular locality must be in close co-operation with local angling clubs and associations. The trust is not a body to supplant local effort but rather to supplement it by doing what is outside the capacity of local interests to undertake, and for this reason, if for no other, it deserves the full support of all anglers, throughout the country.
I mentioned last year that the trust was investigating the possible sites for the establishment of a fish farm. This work had to be done in a very exhaustive manner as a suitable site must have some particular physical characteristics for the successful operation of the farm. For instance, a minimum flow under the most severe drought conditions must be assured. The water must be to a great extent spring water with a constant all the year round temperature. The configuration of the site must give sufficient fall to convey the water to the hatchery and ponds at adequate pressure and again the general character of the site must be such that the ponds, etc., can be easily constructed leaving no danger of water seepage or disappearance. Some few sites had some of the desired characteristics but one was far ahead of all others in that respect. This particularly good site is at Fanure, near Roscrea, and it has been purchased by the trust. Work has already started in measuring up and surveying the ground and it is hoped that the construction work can be commenced in the near future. The cost of the farm is being met by a grant of £25,000 from the National Development Fund. The farm will be a great asset in the development of our trout waters. It will enable most of our restocking schemes to be carried out with young fish at the fingerling stage thus saving the enormous losses which are known to take place where stocking depends on the planting out of fry. The farm will also be a centre of scientific research and in that way help further in collecting data which will be helpful to all concerned with fishery development.
Last year I referred to the establishment of the Salmon Research Trust in conjunction with Messrs. Arthur Guinness, Son & Company, Limited. The object of the trust is to conduct scientific research directed towards the general improvement in the public interest of the salmon and trout fisheries. During 1955 the trust commenced its operations and it has established a research station on the Burrishoole Fishery at Newport, County Mayo, with the co-operation of the owner of the fishery. I am sure that the work of this trust will result in very valuable information being made available which can be applied in the development of our salmon and sea trout fisheries as a whole.
I have given a brief survey of the present condition of our sea and inland fisheries. It may be fairly claimed that progress has been made in many directions and that a solid foundation has been made for further progress in the years to come. If there are any points which I have not touched upon and about which Deputies may wish to have further information, I will do my best to supply it.
The survey by the Parliamentary Secretary of the activities of the section of the Department of Agriculture which comes under his control does not disclose any new or revolutionary activities in relation to the development of our potential wealth in fisheries. It does show, however, a continuance of the useful work which was being slowly accomplished, and when I say slowly accomplished I mean that development of our fisheries in any direction is necessarily a slow operation. When Deputy Bartley was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, one would think, listening to the speeches from this side of the House, that he was supposed to work miracles inside a relatively short period. There is no such thing possible in fisheries.
Those of us who are intimate with the problem and have experienced the many difficulties that beset any effort to improve the industry must realise that there is no round-the-corner solution in relation to the complete development of the undoubtedly vast potential wealth which lies around our seashores and in our coastal fisheries. The Parliamentary Secretary's statement reveals that the progress for which the foundation was laid is continuing and that the work is proceeding satisfactorily. The big question — it was touched on by the Parliamentary Secretary — now is that of the likelihood of supply outrunning demand. That is the immediate responsibility of any body that will seriously undertake future development and the maintenance of the progress which has been made.
It is not very difficult to visualise the situation which may arise if we continue providing more and more boats without, at the same time, making adequate provision for the distribution of the catch. The Parliamentary Secretary is able to report increased activity in the quantity and value of catches in every respect, with the exception of inland salmon and inland fisheries. That is to be expected when we consider that 15 boats were added to the fleet during the year and many more are in the course of construction. There are four boatyards turning out those boats and a continual demand from the fishermen for them on the hire purchase system. We are rapidly reaching the stage when the value of our supplies will be very much depreciated because of the glut which inevitably takes place when the fishing is good and when too many boats are operating.
I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to one thing in his statement which I have been advocating on this Vote every year since I came to this House, that is, the proposal to erect inland distribution stations in one provincial town at least, which will ease the position. In addition to the many other things which can be done to ease the position, the organisation of inland distribution centres must be undertaken as soon as possible. We must get away from the position where this capital is recognised as the only centre from which fish is distributed to the rest of Ireland. We must get away from the position, which has been pointed out thousands of times, where fish en route from Cork or Donegal flies through the provincial towns into Dublin to be marketed, and those provincial towns and the hotels therein may not have even 1 lb. of fish for the menu next day.
By remedying that position we will be increasing the demand for fish generally and enlarging the fish-eating public. The reason fish is not so much in demand in inland towns is that they have not been accustomed to getting regular supplies; perhaps the supplies they got were not in proper condition. That would not make for developing a taste for fish. To that circumstance we can mainly attribute the fact that, although we are an island people, we are not a fish-eating community. Some people say it is because we eat fish on Fridays only but, if these centres of distribution are set up and a continuity of supplies maintained to those centres, that situation will be remedied and we will be doing one of the most important things towards overcoming the grave crisis which could arise from excessive supplies and a shrinkage in demand.
Other things which must go hand in hand with that are the establishment of deep freeze plant and the construction of processing stations, whether for fishmeal or of any other kind. The complete collapse of the market which we have experienced on occasions when glut takes place can be overcome by proper cold storage and in the last resort by sending the surplus supplies, even at an uneconomic price, to fishmeal processing plant. We are glad that somebody is thinking of establishing a full-scale fishmeal station in Donegal. We have not so far had the privilege of having the site pinpointed on the map.
When we first heard these people had been looking for sites, I tried to get the Parliamentary Secretary to give consideration to certain sites and he pointed out to me that they were a private concern which he could not bring to any particular point. I appreciate that difficulty may be there, but I am sure these people coming in to set up the fish processing plant will be very much influenced by the advice they receive from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and from An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The first announcement made by the Minister gave us the impression that it would be in or around Killybegs; he said not 100 miles from Killybegs. The Parliamentary Secretary to-day specifically mentioned Killybegs. I take it then that this factory will be somewhere in or around Killybegs.
Now it would be wrong to give the impression that a fishmeal processing plant is the panacea for all ills attaching to the fishing industry. It is no harm that fishermen should know that it is, in the last resort, a means of utilising surplus catches to prevent the fish being returned to the sea, as has happened in the past, and to remove from the minds of our fishermen the fear of a repetition of that situation should catches prove excessive of needs.
From the point of view of the public generally, there is another aspect, which is somewhat more encouraging, and that is the potential employment which such a processing plant is likely to create. Admittedly, the employment may be irregular or haphazard. A skeleton staff will, of course, always be required but the bulk of the workers will be employed only when the fish harvest is good. The value of these plants, therefore, in so far as employment is concerned, is not to be deprecated. Indeed, they are welcomed by all of us who are interested in the grave problem of unemployment along the western seaboard.
I was disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary made no reference to what I regard as a still indispensable and important section of the fishing industry, namely, the inshore fisherman. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the man who is now regarded as an inshore fisherman goes to sea in a much larger boat and he may remain at sea overnight; he very seldom does, but he may. He is now referred to as the inshore fisherman. But, in the past, the inshore man was the man who rode a small craft to sea and cast his nets to haul in herrings or used his baskets or lines to catch white fish. He has not disappeared and, despite all the progress we are making, I would say that he will always be with us. He is not a whole-time fisherman. Perhaps that is the most satisfactory thing about him; he is a man who works his land, goes to the bog and does small jobs on land. It is only when conditions are suitable that he goes to sea to supplement his income by means of fishing, with his neighbours as a crew. I would not like to see him cast aside and afforded no protection in the future
We had a war in Donegal between the inshore fishermen and the mechanised units. I suppose the least said about that now the better. While some of us are interested and deeply concerned in mechanised units, we appreciate the difficulties of the fisherman in the small craft at the same time. We should like to see the Parliamentary Secretary and those responsible for the fishing industry giving this man consideration and protection to enable him to ply his industry without let or hindrance. I am afraid he cannot do that at the moment. He is faced with many hazards, as he has always been. At best, his calling is a most precarious one and he has now to face the added interference from the men with the larger craft. He does not expect to have miles of reserved fishing territory at his disposal because he does not go to sea every day, but surely some arrangement could be made whereby he would suffer the minimum of interference from those who are equipped to fish over wider territory and in deeper waters. It is only right that a plea should be made on his behalf and, in making that plea, no one is advocating that we should return to more primitive methods. The more up to date the methods and the more modern the equipment the greater the encouragement will be for men to remain in the industry. The fact remains, however, that the small-craft man will always be with us and he deserves some consideration.
In Killybegs at the moment, there are upwards of 20 large boats and undoubtedly the fleet will continue to grow. There is need there of a slipway where boats can be brought in for repair. The case has been made on more than one occasion before the powers-that-be for the provision of such a slipway. The Parliamentary Secretary, however, did not refer to any such development in the list he gave the House. He referred to lifting equipment in the boatyard, but that has nothing to do with the hauling in of the larger boats for repairs. Some of the boats — they were issued many years ago — are constantly in need of some repair.
The fishmeal factory at Killybegs was referred to by some people at one time as a toy plant. I was always satisfied it was both a good and a useful project. As fishmeal plants go, it was small but as a pilot plant it has certainly achieved the purpose of demonstrating the use to which such plants can be put in so far as the fishing industry is concerned. It also provides a certain amount of valuable employment. The people responsible for operating that plant are worthy of praise from those of us who are only too well aware of the success they have made of the plant. Any expansion in our fish processing plants will be attributable mainly to those who have so successfully operated the fishmeal processing plant at Killybegs.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to An Comhlachas Iascaigh Mhara. This body appears to be very interested in the fishing industry, though I have sometimes felt they are more interested in creating a fish war. I remember reading copies of the gazette in which they literally scarified the late Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Bartley.
They have not changed their tune in that regard apparently.
I often thought their approach was not calculated to create harmony and co-operation in the industry. It is very easy to create a "cold war" between private enterprise and the State bodies which are set up to look after the fishery industry. We often hear the complaints of the private man who points out that he is up against a State-sponsored organisation, which has funds from the Exchequer at its disposal, whereas he has to use private capital. We hear those arguments made time and again, and I am sure there is a certain amount of substance in them. At the same time, we all realise that the huge amount of money which must be expended to develop our fisheries could never be laid out by private enterprise, and that some State-sponsored body must undertake the work and see that it is carried out. For that reason, it is essential that we always have a body, such as An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, to initiate schemes and to develop our fisheries generally.
This is one of our most productive sources of wealth, in which good edible food may be harvested from the sea. It is a source of wealth to the nation which could not, and must not, be neglected by any Government. I thought that the board set up by Deputy Bartley during his time as Parliamentary Secretary was a useful board and that it went about its task in the proper way. It may have been pursuing a long-term policy but, as I said at the outset, any development of our fisheries must move slowly and must be by way of a long-term policy.
Why must it move so slowly?
I was sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary in his opening statement did not see fit to refer to the outgoing board. In my opinion, it accomplished most useful work. Now that its statutory period of office has expired, the service of that board is being dispensed with. So far as I know, there was nothing to prevent their being re-elected, and one would think that, if they were good useful men who understood their work, they would have been re-elected. In addition to their integrity, one would have thought that the experience they had gained during their initial period of office would have been sufficient to warrant their reappointment. I am not casting any reflection on those who have been appointed, but the fact that none of the original members has been reappointed and that certain selections have been made on the board seems to give rise to a certain suspicion that political factors are playing a certain part in the important work of conducting our fisheries. I would like to be convinced that that is not the case.
The Deputy is not suggesting that the first board was not appointed for political reasons?
No, indeed I am not. But I am suggesting that the second one smacks a little of political patronage.
The first one was completely political.
The Deputy may have looked on it in that way, but I certainly could not say that. I thought, from my experience of the men on it, that they had been selected because of their particular understanding of the problems involved and because these problems required specialised knowledge. We had on that board a man from Donegal who was not a political friend of mine but he certainly was one of the pioneers of the fishing industry in our country. When I say that, I cast no reflection on the man who replaces him. I am sure he will carry on the work well and apply his long experience to the job. Since Deputy Collins has drawn me out, I felt duty bound to pay a tribute to the man who originally was an appointee on the outgoing board. I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary did not pay a passing tribute to the men who were on the board and who, in my opinion, did a good job of work in the past.
Before making reference to the inland fisheries, I would like to come up the estuary first. In Ballyshannon we have a specialised problem, and the Parliamentary Secretary will excuse me if I make brief reference to it. All is not well between the E.S.B. and the fishermen on the estuarian fishery and the salmon fishery generally. I am not satisfied that proper action is being taken by all concerned in this dispute or by those who could be concerned in the dispute. The Parliamentary Secretary's Department should be interested in it and the Department of Industry and Commerce should be interested in it. It is a matter between the E.S.B. and the local fishermen.
The local fishermen may have exaggerated somewhat when they said, as published in the Press, that the E.S.B. have completely ruined the salmon fisheries on the Erne. That may be an exaggeration but it is also an exaggeration for the E.S.B. to say that they have done the fishery good rather than injuring it. The fact remains that the figures are available and will show that there has been a decline in the number of salmon caught on the Erne over the past few years. The E.S.B. maintain that that is due to the fact that while work on the hydro-electric scheme was in progress the salmon were unable to get up and many were captured in the estuary below the tail-race of the dam. They maintain that, for that reason, catches for those years were naturally higher and it was not only natural that they should decline.
I do not think that that is a complete answer. The problem should be tackled and studied by experts who are in a position to know whether or not the present arrangement is satisfactory. I think that the fish-pass at Ballyshannon is not suitable. It is not a complicated fish-pass, but it is a long run comprising about eighty chambers leading from the tail-race right up to the centre of the dam, through which the fish can pass easily. There is in use there the system, now used in all countries in the world, by which the fish are counted and weighed as they are passing up. By that means it is easy to determine the number of fish passing through. There is one chamber where there is a glass panel through which you can actually see the salmon passing up.
It is not an exaggeration for me to say that, in the course of passing through that dam last year, upwards of 200 of the salmon have died. Some of the experts say that that is due to lack of oxygen in the chamber at times when it is overcrowded with the number of fish passing through. Whatever may be the reason for it, the fact remains that it is a serious position. It goes to show that the type of pass in use there may not be the most suitable type. There is a type of pass in use on the Liffey, a pass of a different, uplift type, where salmon have not to labour or strain themselves in order to get from one height to another. The actual gravity of the water through a vertical cylinder brings the salmon to the surface of the dam at certain intervals. The process is simple and, as a result, there is no strain or exertion. Consequently, the number of fish getting through is greater and the number of casualties fewer. It is a matter for the experts to study the question.
One thing in which I am deeply interested is the fact that many families in Ballyshannon have been deprived of a livelihood and have actually left the district. There are only about ten boats now operating; only about 60 per cent. of the people who were employed in that fishery are now employed there. The number has dropped by about 75 per cent. at least, because the fishing has not been as remunerative as it was in the past.
I mentioned on a previous occasion and I would like to mention again one of the things about which fishermen complain. It is only right that those people who are engaged in the industry should have their grievances brought to the notice of those who may be able to remedy those grievances. The complaint is that the difference between the price of fish in the Dublin market and that paid on the shore is too great. We all know that there must be a difference because of transport, handling costs and various other incidentals, but the amount paid for a stone of fish at Killybegs, and the amount paid the following morning for that stone of fish in the Dublin market show such a vast difference that it creates the impression that undue profits are being made somewhere.
Those prices are announced on the wireless each morning and it is not very encouraging sometimes for fishermen to hear the prices their catch has realised when they themselves on that particular catch have only realised a nominal amount for their hard day's work. There might be reason for examination of that problem. Again in that connection, private enterprise can score a point, because as a rule, such an enterprise can bring in fish with less overheads than an organisation like An Bord Iascaigh Mhara incurs in the handling of the fish. Any State-sponsored or semi-State-sponsored organisation is inclined to levy off against every incidental to make sure that they come out on the right side. For that reason the State concern is never able to compete with private enterprise. Therefore, we hope that all undue charges and overheads will be kept to the minimum. We do not expect that they can do miracles by ruling out distribution and transport and other incidental costs but such charges could be kept to a minimum in order to ensure that the men who do the work get paid for the job.
The export of shellfish seems to continue satisfactorily and we all hope it will develop to a great industry. It is one industry in which a certain type of people are engaged and it has a fairly long season. With the exception of a few months the trade goes on all the year round and provides a handy livelihood to many gatherers, if I may put it that way. The shell fish industry is the one that is showing some buoyancy in the export market and we would only be glad if our deep sea fisheries could anticipate an export market for pelagic and demersal fish. If that were to happen it would be one of the biggest industries this country could have.
The question about sending fish behind the Iron Curtain has been debated time and again. Many people accused Deputy Bartley when he was Parliamentary Secretary of not taking advantage of that market and he had to point out that, at best, it was a doubtful market. While our love for dealing with these people might not be great there were also political considerations and risks involved and, as a market, it could not be anything but a doubtful proposition.
I do not know what the opinion of the present Parliamentary Secretary is but I remember that he once made a severe attack here when we brought in some timber from behind the Iron Curtain. What his attitude towards selling cured fish to countries behind the Iron Curtain may be, I cannot say, but I do know there is a strong school of thought here that we should exploit that market fully.
Red herrings.
I am not too hopeful that it would provide the great market that has been represented by some people to be there. The curing of herrings is a simple process enough but selling them afterwards is not so simple. I think that if we are to develop the home market to the point where we can ensure continuity of supplies to midland centres and at the same time establish sufficient cold storage to hold over glut catches, with fishmeal processing plants to take up the surplus at a time when it cannot be disposed of otherwise, we would be doing well. If we could reach that happy position we could proceed to issue more and more boats to the fishermen and possibly look forward to an export trade and to a thing which we all desire—a really prosperous fishing industry in this island country.
If at times during the course of this debate I appear highly critical of certain of the methods of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara I would like the Parliamentary Secretary and the House to appreciate that it is because of personal experience gleaned and in the interests of the fishermen's welfare. The last Bord Iascaigh Mhara certainly deserve a tribute but it is rather naive of Deputy Brennan to suggest that the selection of that board was not — as any of these boards are under one Government or another— greatly influenced by political considerations. That does not in any way detract from their having done in their time a really good job but I feel that we ought to come to grips with the basic problems of this industry. I do not for a moment accept Deputy Brennan's contention that there are certain facets of this industry in which development cannot be fairly rapid and in which there cannot be a fair amount of expansion. First of all, I have always contended in this House——
The market will not develop rapidly.
The Deputy might listen to me and I will tell him how to develop the market.
That is what we want.
In West Cork in one month we have been able to develop a market that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara would be seeking for the rest of their life and would not get. We were able to provide distribution points in the local creameries where untied fish landed at County Cork ports can be sold and a market provided for 20 or 30 or 40 barrels every week in the areas adjoining these ports. Does it not seem extraordinary that this State sponsored body, with experts in market research at their disposal, should leave it to the initiative of the fisherman to find a market for himself? I shall deal with this problem seriatim because, first of all, I believe even the 50-foot boat is rapidly becoming obsolete; I believe the future of the fishing industry depends on the 65 or 70-foot boat. I believe even such boats must have the height of technical equipment if they are to compete with the foreigners who appear on our waters.
Let us first of all face the problem of our fishermen vis-à-vis the Scotch, English and Welsh fishermen. I cannot understand why we are prepared to give Grants-in-Aid for all classes of projects — for the building of houses, farm dwellings reconstruction and so on— and forget about our fishermen. Most of the fishermen in this country must scrape along for years to try and collect a deposit for a boat when they could be aided by the State, not alone in the matter of deposits but in repayments as well. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do, and so does his predecessor, Deputy Bartley, that some of the best fishermen on our coasts, through the economic circumstances of having wives and large families, have not been able to get together the large sum necessary for a deposit on a reasonably equipped modern fishing vessel.
I think that particular slant of the question should be examined immediately. I believe fishermen should be able, through State aid, to equip modern vessels with such devices as echo meters and fish finders. I speak from the experience of having been out trawling on vessels equipped with such devices. There is no doubt these modern scientific aids enable the skipper to know what type of bottom he is going to shoot into and enables him to know to a reasonable degree of certainty what quantity of fish he is likely to haul. One of the big problems of our fishermen is that they have to shoot in wrong areas and often lose nets and equipment which they would not have lost had they had the benefit of modern scientific methods.
Let nobody be naïve or foolish enough to think we are not running into a highly technically developed enterprise when we start to develop substantially increased landings of edible fish. The Parliamentary Secretary was in Castletownbere recently and he only had to look out the bay to see some 20 foreign trawlers sheltering there from France, Spain and Belgium. That is an indication of how fertile and remunerative are the fishing grounds in the Cape Clear area. The provision of proper technical devices would enable our fishermen to save time in the catching of fish. This would do away with the loss of time involved in the trial and error method used to date. I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary to direct the attention of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to the formation of a plan whereby they would keep up to date with modern developments in aids to fish finding and ensure that these aids would be made available to the fishermen as rapidly and extensively as possible.
I want now to get down to what I believe is the real kernel of weakness in our present system. I refer to the supply of a vital corollary, the supply of ice and cold storage facilities for fish. There is another thing in which the board have failed miserably—and I say "miserably" deliberately—and that is in the question of marketing of catches. I will give one classic example. I was present on the quay in Dunmore last year and I saw herrings going at 35/- or even 30/- a cran. One of the skippers in a boat fishing in Dunmore, finding himself with a couple of hundred crans aboard, and seeing the price offered on the quay, made contact with Milford-Haven where he discovered he could get £5 10s. a cran. That skipper, with a little more initiative than the others, battened down his hatches, ran into Milford-Haven and got £5 10s. a cran for his fish. It seems extraordinary that the initiative of one man can make that difference in his circumstances in one day. On the same day the lorries of Bord Iascaigh Mhara were lined up along the quay to take on fish for the fishmeal plant at Killybegs.
The only justification for the sending of good class edible fish to the fishmeal plant would be an abnormal glut on the market. The whole design and purpose of those plants should be to deal with the gut, the heads, tails and residue of good class fish rather than have first-class prime herrings reduced to fishmeal. Let us face the fact that there is virtually no distribution of fish, good, bad or indifferent, throughout Ireland. Let us realise that what Deputy J. Brennan said is pathetically true—that the fish come up from Cork and down from Donegal and are distributed through Dublin.
Here is an extraordinary thing on which the Parliamentary Secretary should give an explanation. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara sell fish on the Cork market and the price bears no relation to the price asked in Dublin for the same type of fish. The result is that all the fishermen on the south coast avoid the Cork market like the plague, preferring to transport their catches to Dublin. Every Friday I drive from Dublin to West Cork and, with the exception of hotels, on the whole route down fish is as scarce as could be. In the fishing villages of West Cork itself unless you have a cara sa chúirt on the boats you will not get any fish in the village.
Deputy Brennan challenged me as to how that position can be got over. There are multiple ways of getting over it, and there is no need for any cumbersome system of stores in every provincial town. It may be necessary in two or three cities to have suitable stores in which they would be able to retain highly edible and palatable types of fish such as the quick frozen fillets. Every town in Ireland has somebody seeking supplies if only people could get an assurance of regular supplies. The retailers are ready to take on the job if they could get the supplies. In a country as small as this, with every part of it accessible to other parts within seven, eight or nine hours, there could be a simple routing of fish to the retailers. What is wrong with us in this country is that we always try to have elaborate schemes of distribution where a simple and straightforward scheme would do.
I had the experience recently of going with some fishermen in West Cork to explore possibilities of the immediate local market. We have a highly developed creamery area there and we went and approached the general managers of the creameries about the possibilities of making fish available to them on Fridays. We were received with open armed enthusiasm. The initial supplies of good fish to these creameries has proved to anybody who has his eyes open how something could be done about the distribution of fish in this country. If there is one industry in this country that should be kept out of Dublin and away from the centralisation grasp of Dublin, it is the fishing industry. We have four or five main ports for the landing of fish. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the wholesale marketing of fish on the quays where they are landed.
We all know that the impost of transport charges to the Dublin market is taking a good deal of the cream off the income which the fishermen should have. I suggest to Bord Iascaigh Mhara that they should try the operation of wholesale markets on the quays and that those who come to buy bear the transport charges after the fisherman has been paid. You may then find a big improvement in the price the fisherman will get for his fish. Let us get away from cod grandiose schemes. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that if Bord Iascaigh Mhara put an advertisement in the papers to-morrow, saying that they had supplies of reasonable types of white fish, cod and hake available and they asked for agents in provincial towns to handle those supplies, they would get many more applications than a county council would get in reply to an advertisement for a rate collector.
I saw recently the elegant building which has been opened by Bord Iascaigh Mhara and which, in addition to offices, has central workshops and gear shops. Maybe I have a wrong concept, but I do think it extraordinary that they are going to drag engines of boats from the ports to Dublin for overhaul and reconditioning. All the indications in that are of a wrong type of approach by officials towards the problem. Fishermen want their gear and the equipment maintained, but surely it would be better to have it done where it was convenient for them. One thing that will have to be attended to is the question of having a scheduled time when boats will have to come back for a general engine overhaul. The engines of all mechanical vehicles have to be overhauled and reconditioned at certain times if they are to work efficiently and this applies particularly to the engines of fishing boats. Many of these boats have been in service for a long time and if they are to give a proper service they must receive overhauls at the proper time.
I should like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary of an experience I had in the Dublin market recently. I was getting continuous complaints from the fishermen that there was a substantial difference between the prices paid to independent fish wholesalers and the price that the board was getting for the fish. I have checked on these matters and I will make available to the Parliamentary Secretary a series of dockets that will show the difference in the prices got in the various ports and the prices got by the independent wholesalers. The difference was 4/-, 5/- and 6/- a box. If you take that from the fisherman who lands 40, 50 or 70 boxes of fish, you can see that the difference is very substantial. One of the reasons for that is that there is not enough control by the board in the Dublin market.
I happened to go to the market very recently with a member of the board and I found that the independent wholesale people in Dublin fish market had all their fish sold and the fish under the control of Bord Iascaigh Mhara had not been sold. That is another of the difficulties which is being experienced. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to see that an amount equal to the difference between the prices got by independent wholesalers and those acting for the board is given to the fishermen. I think, further, that if the auctioneers for the board are not prepared to get up early enough to dispose of the supplies, they should change their auctioneers. As the position is operating at the moment, the fishermen who are tied to the board are getting less for their catches than those independent fishermen with whom they fish side by side in the same area. The difference very often amounts to £2, £3 or £4 a week for men who are fishing in the same fishing grounds. It is a chaotic situation. I am prepared to give the board credit for some very substantial advances but, if we are to increase the landings of fish and provide better equipment for fishing, surely the first thing we must do is to get an effective and informed outlook on the whole question on the consumption of fish. I believe myself that proper supplies and a reasonable approach to the domestic consumer can make our people fish-minded very rapidly. There are types of cod and hake and flat fish that would make a very welcome contribution to the diet of many a household in this country already overburdened by high costs.
Do not start thinking of distribution in this country as if we were some huge scattered nation with a population of millions. Distribution can be effected very rapidly in this country if the will is there. It seems extraordinary that now, after all our years of effort, there is no general system of fish distribution in our provincial centres. There need not be any clash between An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and private enterprise. If the board have good class supplies to furnish to private enterprise they can set up a distributing system very rapidly.
I want to come back again to the problem of landings. With increased landings, there is a necessity for port improvements in many areas. I want to refer specifically to the ports of substantial landings in West Cork, Schull and Berehaven. In both cases, the piers need substantial additions. I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what progress, if any, has been made with the suggested extension of the pier at Schull in order to make the lee harbour a safe anchorage for boats. While myself and my colleague, Deputy M.P. Murphy, will have to pay substantial tribute to the board and to the Parliamentary Secretary for the fact that we are going to get ice plant facilities and storage facilities in Schull and Berehaven, that does not obviate the necessity for the provision of another very vital factor in the survival of the fishermen. That is safe anchorage and good piers.
We have got to move with the times. Deputy J. Brennan paid tribute to the part-time fisherman who takes out his boat and supplements his income but I feel that our main consideration will have to be for the full-time fisherman who is using, to the full, the technical equipment made available to him and who must keep up the standard of his landings in order to make his avocation worth while for himself and his crew.
It is in this spirit that I direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fact that, where keen advances have been made in commercial fishing, the 50-foot type of boat is disappearing and is being replaced by a boat from 65 to 72 feet. The experience is there for the board to assess in the case of the few boats in the 65-foot class that have been operating on the coast. They are able to fish against any type of trawler which is at present invading our waters. In the ultimate analysis, the fisherman who is going to take on himself the responsibility of delivering to the board will be better served by the type of craft that is in conformity with the day and age in which he has to fish.
Above all, we want to ensure that we eliminate, as far as possible, the many hazards which the fishermen had to undergo in the past. I think that can be done if the board provides the latest in technical developments and supplies as rapidly as possible for the fishermen. I am advocating that that should be done on the basis of giving substantial grants to enable the equipment to be put in as rapidly as possible, because that equipment is going to reduce the loss of nets and gear, and will increase landings of fish. Any money spent in that way will be well-invested.
Having dealt with the question of distribution, let us come to another very necessary avenue of development. Can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate to us what, if any, market research has been done in relation to any possible surplus of fish, either fresh or processed, that may be available under the stimulus of an increased number of boats? Has any effort been made to investigate the prospect of export markets vis-á-vis the people who are experts in fish exports and who are fishing along the West coast of Ireland — the French, Norwegians and Belgians? It seems chaotic to me that, having filled to its potential the domestic market, we cannot get some kind of outlet for our surplus fish. Has the possibility of the canning of the various types of fish been investigated? What progress, if any, has been made with market research in relation to the white kipper as distinct from the brown kipper? What progress, if any, has been made about providing storage arrangements for processed fish here so that it will be available in lacuna periods so as to obviate any imports of fish at all?
Market research is becoming the most essential part of modern export development. Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what real exploration of the potential has been made? Has any exploration been made of the possibility of the export, for instance, of tinned or bottled shrimps and prawns? We are in a most fortunate position in the shellfish trade at the moment because of the complete denudation and exhaustion of the Basque shellfish beds, resulting in freely available French and Lowlands markets as well as substantial markets in England. Can we not exploit that situation to make, as permanent adjuncts to shellfishing, the production of either canned, bottled or processed shellfish for these markets?
I am inclined to wax enthusiastic at times about the fishing industry because, rightly or wrongly, I believe it can be developed into a major national production unit. With a reasonable approach we can eliminate for all time imports of fish and, with adequate market research, process fish to enable us to compete in an export market. Will anybody tell me that it would not have been practicable and possible to process herrings at 30/- a cran for an export market against anybody? Of course it would. As I said when opening my speech, there is nobody more appreciative of what has been done than I am. There is nobody more appreciative than many of the people whom I represent and who have been able to get boats and enter the fishing industry, but it is to the amount that has not been done, it is to the amount I feel sure should be done, that it is my responsibility to direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention.
Provision is being made for refrigerated transport. With due respect, I think a lot of that is cod. If there was any kind of an analysis of distribution made in this country it would be found that there is hardly a place in Ireland where fresh fish landed iced could not be delivered in prime condition from any vehicle. If we start thinking in terms of expensive refrigerated transport here and other types of transport there, in the ultimate analysis it is the fishermen who will pay for it and it is from the earnings of the fishermen that all that money must come. It is our duty to guard the fishermen as much as possible against that type of filching of what should be their legitimate earnings. It is a sorry return the fisherman is getting for the 7½ per cent. commission he has to pay the board for sales of his fish, fish he could not sell anywhere else if those sales are not in any way comparable to the sales of other wholesalers. There must be some reason for it. If there was an occasional differentiation it would be understandable, but I have gone through a series of dockets with fishermen and that differentiation is a repetitive feature of the sales.
I realise there is a great deal of genuine progress being made by the Parliamentary Secretary's section of the Department. I know how anxious the Parliamentary Secretary is to safeguard the interests of the fishermen and to reduce the hazards of his livelihood, but we would be failing in our duty if, having accepted the benefits, we did not endeavour to give some constructive criticism as to how things might be improved. Fish abound around our coasts. Our fishermen have proved their capacity to catch and kill it but we have not yet been able to tap the domestic market properly for fish. We are still in the position that whether the fish is landed in Killybegs, Galway, Berehaven, Schull or on the east coast of Ireland, into Dublin it goes out and out again. Rapid investigation is needed into that situation. Remember, the transport charges are a burden on fishermen, particularly the fishermen who have to send the fish long distances, at a cost of from £60 to £70 per lorry, to the Dublin market.
In relation to inland fishing, it is a matter of regret that in certain areas there is a substantial decline in salmon catches. Another thing I would say, whether the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me or not, is that where salmon or salmon-trout fishing is a main feature of the livelihood of the people, as it is in certain of the rivers in my constituency, there has not been sufficient rigidity in dealing with the person who is buying the poached fish from the poacher. You cannot have a situation of improved fishing for these people whose livelihood depends on it where the incidence of poaching is becoming fairly extensive and where the incidence of political interference with the consequences that they should normally suffer is becoming more prevalent.
I know well the conservators of my area have been making strong representations to the Parliamentary Secretary in this connection. I have a great regard for the man who will take the chance, and if he gets away with it, go n-éirigh an t-ádh leis, but if he is caught I feel that, in the normal spirit of thrust and parry, he should take the consequences. Many of the rivers and of the trout fishing areas of this country are so severly poached that it is impossible for those languid, lazy anglers, whom the Parliamentary Secretary is so anxious to encourage, to catch anything when they go to fish in some of those areas.
Perhaps at this stage I might be permitted to say that, since I became Parliamentary Secretary, I have on no occasion recommended mitigation of a fine in so far as fishery offences are concerned. I am glad to have this opportunity of saying that now for the records of this House. On no single occasion have I recommended mitigation of any penalties.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary did not for a moment think that I was inferring that he did.
And, if he did, sure, it would not be a mortal sin.
I have not done so and I shall not do so. I think it is not in the best interests of the fishing industry to recommend mitigation of penalties where the court inflicts a fine. I am with the court in that and I am not prepared to ask the Minister for Justice to mitigate the fine. Remember, the matter is one for the Minister for Justice and not for me.
I would ask my friend, Deputy Seán Collins, if he ever did a little bit of poaching.
That is a personal question.
I never got caught.
And, if he did get caught, his fine would not be reduced with my approval.
It is political poaching the Deputy is talking about.
This is a vitally important Estimate because it deals with what is an expansionist industrial potential within the State. We talk about emigration and the flight from the western and south western sea board and many of us know, in our heart that, with a reasonable development of the fishing industry, we would be able to keep our people at home. Not alone that, but we would be able to bring back those who are now fishing in foreign boats. We would be able to get experienced skippers for the best boats we could supply. They would come back into the seaside districts and settle down there with their families. I and my colleague have seen that development in a somewhat small way in the last five or six years. We have seen families settling down, crew members planning their routes around our fishing ports in West Cork. That is particularly the case in Schull and Berehaven. Where there is availability of equipment and a reasonable hope of earning a good livelihood the fishermen are settling down, skipper and crew.
There is one other aspect, which may not be altogether relevant to the present Estimate, but it is one to which, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary can lend a tremendous impetus. I refer to the provision of vocational training in navigation, engine maintenance and boat repairs in our ports and harbours. Because of the increase in the size of the boats and the increase in instrumental appliances, the time has come when it is vitally essential that the crews of these boats should be trained in the elements of navigation, engine maintenance and equipment maintenance. Young families are growing up in Berehaven and Schull with a fishing tradition behind them and the Parliamentary Secretary should urge on the educational authorities the importance of making available the type of training I suggest. I predict that in the foreseeable future no man will be able to take a boat to sea, in excess of 50 or 55 feet, without having some kind of mariner's certificate as to his competence to skipper such a craft. There is an abundance of tradition and a ready intelligence in these people; vocational education on the lines I suggest will make them technically efficient and sufficiently skilled to man the most up-to-date boats we may place at their disposal.
Irrespective of which side of the House we sit, there is a tremendous amount of respect of the Parliamentary Secretary's anxiety to reach the fishermen and discuss with the fishermen the problems inherent in their trade. There is an appreciation among those engaged in fishing that the Parliamentary Secretary is of them and with them in their efforts to progress.
If I appear highly critical of the marketing arrangements of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, I advance my arguments in the hope of giving them a solution to some of their difficulties and, at the same time, ensuring that the industry in which they play such an important part will get every chance to expand. I hope my criticism is healthy criticism directed towards furthering the progress of a growing, strong and virile industry, an industry which can bring stability and an increase in population to large areas in which the flight from the land and the sea has been so pronounced.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will continue, while he is spared to put his hand to this task, to make every effort towards the advancement of the fishing industry. If he finds himself baulked by lack of funds it is my firm conviction that he can come in here at any time and find sufficient of us here to ensure that the further advancement of the fishing industry will not be impeded. Lean leis an obair agus go n-éirigh an t-ádh leat.
I must confess my knowledge of the fishing industry is very elementary. Consequently my contribution will be very brief and more or less of a local character. As a member for a constituency which is to some extent interested in the fishing industry, in deep-sea fishing, tidal-water fishing and ordinary fresh-water fishing, there are a few matters to which I would like to refer.
I do not know what the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary is or whether he favours what is termed sea fishing, but anglers have been for some time hoping for an alleviation of the restrictions under which they suffer in certain areas where the practice of free fishing was permitted by the farmers who own the lands adjoining the rivers and the fishing rights in the rivers. In recent years these farmers have leased these rights to wealthy sportsmen who come over here with plenty of money and are prepared to pay any price for the rights. Unless something is done to stop that practice, angling will soon become the sport of the wealthy only and the poor will be relegated to the canals and the reservoirs to fish for pike and roach.
In regard to commercial salmon fishing, I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that last year our catches were approximately 1,200,000 lb. and of that only about one-tenth was taken by salmon rods. Now salmon rod fishermen have to pay very substantial licence fees and they contribute heavily to angling clubs for the preservation of our rivers. They contribute largely to angling groups for the preservation of our rivers. They are the mainstay of our tackle shops all over the country.
There are in Kerry, Connemara, Donegal and other salmon fishing centres, hotels whose clientele consists mainly of salmon rod fishermen. These fishermen have to be satisfied with the salmon that are allowed to pass through our weirs during the weekends. That affords very poor fishing. Much greater consideration should be shown to the interests of our salmon fishermen. Apart from the monetary aspect of this matter, our salmon and trout fishing are the most fascinating of sports. Our Irish lakes and rivers are legendary wherever anglers foregather. For that reason, they are an extremely valuable adjunct to the tourist industry. The task of protecting and managing and preserving our inland fisheries provides employment for a good number of men but that number could be greatly expanded and the number of our fishing visitors could be progressively increased if the means available to us were fully used. It has always been a great difficulty for our boards of conservators to protect our inland fisheries properly. The difficulty in that regard was increased last year by the revocation of the export levy on salmon by the Minister for Agriculture, thus seriously curtailing a valuable source of revenue for development and protection purposes.
They got more money last year than they ever got. They got it from the Exchequer by way of free grant.
It is a fact to-day that, with salmon fetching such a high price, poaching is big business and very serious damage is being done to our inland fisheries. In my opinion, long-term imprisonment is the only way out of the difficulty where that type of poaching is concerned. It is extremely difficult to catch the poachers and the whole problem has been rendered more difficult by the Minister's action in reducing the means of effectively policing our rivers.
The conservators are actually getting more than they ever got before.
This levy contributed to a fund which was used for development and protection purposes.
Not at all. That money went into the Exchequer and came out again. We are giving the boards of conservators their full grant without taking the levy from the salmon fishing.
The boards of conservators have not the means to protect and develop our inland fisheries. I think I am voicing the opinion of the vast majority of the people interested in inland fisheries when I say that the only way you can have proper development and protection is by the establishment of a semi-State body on the lines of Bord na Móna or Comhlucht Siuicre Éireann, Teo., to deal with them.
Would the Deputy favour abolishing the boards of conservators?
I would.
That is a very revolutionary suggestion.
I believe it would be a wise step. Early last year, the Parliamentary Secretary paid a visit to Waterford. I am sure he was impressed by the value and importance of the fishing industry in that area. I hope he was convinced of the necessity to improve and develop the industry there. While we were grateful to him for his assurance that the scheme for improvement, for the provision of an ice plant and for the repair of the quays at Passage, would have his immediate and careful consideration we feel now that, in view of the chaos that prevailed in the fish business in Dunmore during the past fishing season, some immediate and definite action should be taken to prevent a recurrence of those disastrous conditions in the coming year.
It is apparent that the provision of an ice plant is a very urgent consideration to ensure that the fishermen of Dunmore and the surrounding areas will not have to spend their time kicking their heels on the quays for days before they dispose of their surplus catches. They should be enabled to return to reap further the harvest that lies waiting for them if only they could dispose of their previous catch rather than have it lying and rotting on the quays. The conditions that prevail in our southern ports should galvanise the Parliamentary Secretary into some action to prevent a recurrence of that type of thing. It may be that, after due consideration, the Parliamentary Secretary may be of the opinion that the provision of an ice plant there would not be economic. To be quite candid, I am not entirely sure myself that the supplies of fish there would always be such as to keep an ice plant fully occupied or nearly fully occupied. However, it is very evident that something must be done to take the surplus catches off the hands of the fishermen.
Were these mainly herring?
Yes.
We hope to provide a fishmeal plant to deal with it.
It is evident that something must be done and done quickly.
Was that fishmeal plant not to be in Donegal?
That is the first of them.
There is a very practical way in which the Parliamentary Secretary can come to the aid of the fishermen in Dunmore and the surrounding areas. We have a very substantial fleet making use of that harbour. I understand that their boats require to be overhauled on an average twice per year and that, to have that work done, they are obliged to undertake a long sea voyage to Arklow or Baltimore. Naturally, they are very reluctant to face this journey, and the proper care of their boats is, therefore, neglected. Consequently, they deteriorate at a very alarming rate. The provision of a slipway would be a godsend to those people. I understand that the cost of the erection of such a slipway would be about £3,000. Such an expenditure would not be entirely lost. I understand it would be recovered in a short time and would then show a profit in respect of the fees which the fishermen would pay for its use when their boats would require overhauling. I hope I am not appealing in vain to the Minister to provide such a slipway for them.
Where exactly has the Deputy in mind?
Dunmore. As regards our inshore fishing, there are landing places along the Waterford coast where it is impossible to land fish, particularly during bad weather. I have in mind in particular Ardmore Harbour, where the development of the fishing industry has been greatly impeded through lack of proper landing facilities and for want of the improvement of the harbour generally. I believe that the former Parliamentary Secretary indicated the willingness of his Government to give a grant for this work but that the county council were unwilling to avail of it because of the steep increase in the rates which it would entail. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter with a view to making a bigger grant available for the work.
Then is there not the problem of maintenance? If you did repair the facilities there, is it not the responsibility of the county council to maintain it? Are they prepared to maintain it?
There is the necessity for improving the harbour and providing landing facilities first. Afterwards, there would be a question of maintenance by the county council.
Would they be prepared to do so?
I understand they would. We have at Checkpoint, too, a dredging problem. There is an accumulation of silt and sand at the mouth of the river and I understand that certain local fishermen would be prepared to undertake the removal of the sand and silt if financial aid were forthcoming for the purpose. There are also at this point a number of stakes or piles of an old weir which at high tide are completely covered and are a menace to the fishermen at their work. The removal of these would enable the fishermen to carry on their work without the danger of having their nets torn to pieces or their boats very severely damaged.
In reply to a parliamentary question put down by my colleague, Deputy Kenneally, last week, in regard to the provision of a boat for the fishermen of Ring and Helvic, under the Fíor-Ghaeltacht scheme, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that no decision had been reached in regard to this matter. To say the least of it, that was very disquieting news. I was under the impression, and so were the fishermen of that area, that a boat had been earmarked for them. The need of these fishermen is for a large boat to enable them to fish at some distance from the shore. Their present boats are too frail and weak to permit them to do anything but inshore fishing and they assure me that inshore fishing at the moment is unproductive. If they had a larger boat, they could go from 20 to 30 miles out to sea where they could get plenty of fish, herring and mackerel, in which they are especially interested. Apart from the fishermen in the locality, there are some 20 or more others who could be gainfully employed if supplies of fish were plentiful. Without fish, these people are dependent on the dole. They belong to the Fíor-Ghaeltacht, and in helping them the Parliamentary Secretary will only be pushing on the plans of the Government for the development of the Gaeltacht areas. I would appeal to him, in view of the urgent need of these people, to provide a boat which would permit them to fish at a distance from the shore. I would ask him to make the case before An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and ask them to make such a boat available to them as soon as possible.
Might I suggest in conclusion that no effort should be spared to develop our fishing industry to the fullest extent? A lack of boats, gear and equipment generally is no longer a deterrent to its development since the establishment of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, which is empowered to grant essential aid to the fishermen who are responsible for the initial stages of the industry. The board is also charged with the responsibility of introducing improvements in curing, marketing and transport, and cold storage. There is no doubt that the establishment of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara with these powers has had a very beneficial effect on the industry as a whole but it is rather unfortunate that we are not so much alive to the value of fish as a food as other nations.
People have no fish in inland towns.
I would say that that is why the fishing industry is not developed to a greater extent. One cannot expect the fishermen to provide, or the distributors to distribute, a highly perishable food which is eaten only one day a week. I think in the interests of the industry a more vigorous and energetic campaign might be undertaken to educate our people on the value of fish as a food and encourage the wider use of it from the point of view of the effect on the national larder and from the point of view of those who make their livelihood mainly or partly by fishing. I think such a campaign might well be placed in the hands of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and would have a very beneficial effect.
I should like to tell the Deputy that the "Eat More Fish" campaign is to start next week.
I think it would be out of place for me if I did not preface my remarks with a word of thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which he has helped us in West Cork since his appointment. He has visited us on two occasions and both of his visits have borne fruit. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that the people appreciate his actions very much indeed. We are deeply grateful for the provision of the ice plant in Schull which is now in the course of erection and also for the proposed ice plant at Castletownbere which is to be provided from the current Estimate. While these two items are of great importance and of great advantage to the fishermen in West Cork, there are a few more items to which we would like the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to give attention. However, as the Minister is present, I shall just leave over these matters for a while and get on to another question.
There is a matter I do not understand and I have failed to get any definite information about it since I came into this House. That is the question of reserved inland fisheries. We have in this country stretches of rivers and lakes entirely reserved to certain people and on analysis we find that the majority of these people are not Irish at all. My information is that these fishery rights are held under ancient charters from kings who have been dead for the past 400 to 500 years. Is it not rather peculiar that at this time in 1956, when we in this part of the country describe ourselves as a Republic, that our own Irish people, people of Irish stock and origin, are deprived of fishing in certain portions of our fisheries, and have to keep completely away from certain rivers and certain lakes?
I think that is a matter to which this Government should address itself immediately because ordinary people down the country cannot understand why some legislation has not been enacted doing away with that undesirable position. As the Minister is present, I would ask him this question: From information which I have received recently, am I right in saying that the E.S.B. purchased from a lady in Cork private fishery rights held on the River Lee under a charter of King Charles II of England? If I remember my history correctly, King Charles died in the year 1660, but this lady in Cork was able to sell portion of her fishery rights to a State-sponsored body for some £4,000. Is that correct or incorrect? If it is correct—and my information tends to indicate it is—I think it is a scandal and a shame that public funds to the extent of £4,000 should be paid for the purchase of these private fishery rights held exclusively under charter of King Charles II by this person in Cork.
