Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Jun 1965

Vol. 216 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 37—Fisheries (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £558,400 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

—(Minister for Agriculture.)

Mr. Corish

I think the question was posed to the Minister by another Deputy last week as to whether there would be some person in the Government, either a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, who would take full responsibility for the fishing industry. I do not know what duties have been assigned to the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary. It is possible that he may be in charge of Fisheries. I think the fishermen of this country, both the sea fishermen and the inland fishermen, are entitled to be displeased with the treatment of this industry in recent years. Sometimes it is the responsibility of the Minister for Lands; for a time it was the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture; and sometimes it is given over entirely to a Parliamentary Secretary. I respectfully suggest to the Minister for Agriculture that he has enough on his plate in dealing with the vast problems of what I would call pure agriculture. I do not question his ability to administer and preside over either the Fisheries Section or the Department of Agriculture but I suggest that there is such great potential in the fishing industry, it is a full time job.

The two Programmes for Economic Expansion envisaged great things for this industry but the progress forecast certainly has not been achieved since the two Programmes were announced. Therefore, the Minister should say whether he will be in charge of the Fisheries Section as Minister for Agriculture or whether he will delegate this responsibility to his Parliamentary Secretary, because, again let me stress it, this is a full-time job and I think it is due to the fishermen, inland and sea, that there should be somebody with full-time responsibility in charge of the Section.

In his speech the Minister seemed optimistic about the fishing industry. He seemed particularly optimistic with regard to the sea fisheries. The White Paper published in April, 1962, envisaged rapid and effective expansion and stated that the fishing industry would contribute to a greater degree to the expansion of the economy. To say the least of it, this has not happened. We were furnished in 1964 with a Progress Report on the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. At page 44, in which there is a table showing the landings of sea and shell-fish from 1960 to 1964, there is evidence pointing to a decline in landings and, of course, consequently in the sea fishing industry.

This must be disturbing because we have always regarded the fishing industry as having great potential. Apparently that potential has not been exploited. The table on page 44 of the Progress Report on the Second Programme shows that the value of landings of sea and shell-fish in the years 1960 to 1964 dropped somewhat. It seems to me, therefore, a greater effort must be made by the Minister for Agriculture or whoever will be in exclusive control of the fishing industry.

The aim of the Second Programme was that the landings of sea fish should be doubled between 1960 and 1970. We find that the landings of fish between 1960 and 1964 have fallen and therefore it seems that the task between 1965 and 1970 is to treble the landings of sea and shell-fish. Whether we can achieve the targets set by the Second Programme is, to say the least, very questionable. The Minister referred— if he did not, the 1964 Progress Report did—to the big decrease or, as it is described, the dramatic drop, in the landings of herrings at Dunmore.

Most Members of the House who take an interest in sea fishing know the reason, or part of it, for the dramatic drop in the landings of herrings at Dunmore. Whether this problem in Dunmore will be resolved, I do not know. I am sure Members of the House will be pleased to hear some comment from the Minister as to whether it can be resolved. I do not know what effect it has had on the fishing industry generally but it appears from the Progress Report to which I have referred that the imports of canned fish have increased since 1964. I suggest the Minister should inquire into this and consider the desirability of cutting down imports of canned fish instead of allowing them to increase as they did in 1964.

I should like to know from the Minister—this would be a good criterion as to the success of the aims of the Second Programme in regard to fisheries—how many people are engaged in sea fishing. I know it is difficult to say because of the fact that sea fishing is a seasonal occupation, that employment varies from season to season, but it would be revealing to the House and the country if the Minister could give us some idea of how many are getting an adequate livelihood all the year round from sea fishing.

The Minister referred in his speech to the training of boys as fishermen. I suggest we need greater detail as to what has happened since this training scheme was inaugurated, as to what response there has been and whether the Minister is satisfied with it. I know how difficult it is to induce boys to train as fishermen. It is an arduous occupation and, I suppose, if the money is not good, not too attractive. I suggest that if we are to attract boys into training as fishermen and fishermen into training as skippers, there will have to be greater inducement than there is at the moment.

Another problem I should like to refer to is the question of responsibility of the Minister or Bord Iascaigh Mhara for defective boats and engines that have been supplied to fishermen through the Board. I raise this matter because I have experience of a particular case. The suppliers of boats or engines have been approved by the Board but the evidence as I see it is that the Board take no steps to protect the boat owners when it has been shown that the boats are defective or, as in the case of which I have some knowledge, the engine is defective.

Bord Iascaigh Mhara insist on repayments for the purchase of engines or boats but the fisherman seems to have no protection if he discovers after a short time that the engine or boat which he got through loan from the Board is defective. I brought one case to the notice of the Board and the Fisheries Section, which was under the Department of Lands then. The unfortunate fisherman had no redress. His engine was proved to be defective but the Board did not seem to mind. They told him it was a matter between him and the suppliers of manufacturers.

I do not think that is good enough. This boat owner—I am sure it has happened in other cases—was left to battle out his dispute with the suppliers —I cannot remember their names— who had been approved by Bord Iascaigh Mhara, or the Minister, or both. If that is so and if the Board advanced the money for the purchase of the engine or boat, I submit they have a responsibility to protect the boat owner who finds himself saddled with a defective boat or engine.

One of the great complaints of the fishermen down the years has been that their boats have not been big enough to enable them to fish beyond what is regarded as the inshore fishery area. The Second Programme for Economic Expansion envisaged the provision of 65-foot boats. I wonder could the Minister tell us what progress is being made in regard to providing that type of boat and how many have been built over the past few years. It must also be obvious that many of these bigger and, indeed, better boats, will be needed by the fishermen in view of the new field of fishing that will be available from the final extension of the fishing limits. This new area will be in the main exclusive to Irish fishermen. It would be a pity if, for lack of proper boats, they could not exploit this new fishing ground. There was a recommendation in the White Paper in regard to the provision of more boats of 32-feet for shell fishing because it was believed that there was a good market for this type of fish. Perhaps, when the Minister is replying, he will also indicate what progress has been made in regard to the provision of the 32-foot boat in view of what has been said about the excellent market for shell-fish.

I do not think the Minister for Agriculture should ignore the development of the smaller harbours. Certain large harbours have been earmarked for major development and reconstruction schemes but it seems to me that many of the smaller harbours are being neglected. There are some in my own constituency. To mention one, there is Kilmore which has a good number of boats. The fishermen have been waiting for years to have the Kilmore Quay harbour put into proper condition. It is true that work is to be commenced on the reconstruction and development of Kilmore Quay harbour this summer. I suppose it is a good thing that it will start this year but the question has been discussed for many years by the Wexford County Council, the Board of Works and the Fisheries Section of the Department of Agriculture. These delays are most frustrating and annoying to the fishermen, to say the least, and they cannot afford to wait for a period of five to ten years in order to keep their boats in the water and obtain a decent living. Whilst I do not disagree with the development of places like Dunmore, Galway and other places which were mentioned, I believe the Minister should concern himself with the development and the maintenance—that is probably a matter for the county council—of the smaller harbours and concentrate on that aspect to a greater degree.

The Minister referred also to marketing. This is I suppose one of the biggest problems in regard to improving the fishing industry. I do not know whether it was stated by the Minister or whether it was said in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion that the effort must be made to improve distribution and encourage increased consumption. I do not know whether we have improved distribution. I know that steps have been taken to encourage the consumption of fish and there have been fish cooking competitions and displays. I was particularly attracted to a suggestion made by Deputy P. O'Donnell from Donegal. I did not get to see the Spring Show this year but Deputy O'Donnell mentioned the excellent stand which Irish Sea Fisheries had. He thought it would be a good idea if that were copied in provincial areas. If that is a worthwhile suggestion, the Minister should seriously consider it. It must be acknowledged that we are not a fish-eating country. There may be a particular reason for that, which I do not think needs to be mentioned, but a greater effort will have to be made to ensure that the fishermen will obtain a greater income from the consumption of fish here. There does not seem to be any dynamic effort being made to promote a sales campaign or to do any of the things recommended in the White Paper of April, 1962.

I would be interested to know if there are statistics available to show how we rate as fish consumers compared with other European countries. My belief is that we fall behind other countries in this regard but it would be interesting if the Minister had figures to give us. That sort of information would give us some idea about what our targets should be in trying to extend the home market.

The Minister or the White Paper also referred to assistance to retailers. It is difficult to see what effective assistance is being given. It is not the Minister's responsibility but I am aware of one retailer who was anxious to sell fish caught off the Wexford coast and the unfortunate man had to wait for months to get a telephone installed. I do not know whether or not there is liaison between Departments but I feel that if we wanted to increase consumption and distribution a retailer could have been facilitated in a small matter like that.

There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer and that is the subject-matter of a deputation we had to the Minister last week regarding monofilament nets. I can understand the anxiety of the Minister and his officials to protect the inland fisheries particularly in regard to salmon. I do not know whether we have a proper balance in respect of salmon fishing. It is alleged on the one side that the net fishermen are being allowed to get more than their share of salmon in the river estuaries and, on the other hand, it is alleged by net fishermen that the rod fishermen are getting an undue proportion of salmon. I do not pretend to know what the proper balance should be.

I appreciate the importance of the inland fisheries and I appreciate their importance to the tourist industry but, equally, I appreciate the importance of fishermen getting a decent livelihood. These monofilament nets have proved successful as far as the net fishermen are concerned, too successful, according to the Minister and those who are interested in rod fishing of salmon. The Minister recently took steps to ban the use of this monofilament net. I think neither he nor anybody else could say now whether he was right or wrong because these monofilament nets have been on trial for the past three or four months and I doubt if anybody can say what, if any, damage is being done to the rod fishermen of salmon rivers. The Minister suspended the ban on these nets for a period and allowed them to be used until, I think, last Monday when the net fishermen had to revert to the nets they had been using for years and years. I do not think net fishermen made any secret of the fact that they were doing fairly well with these nets but they have had many lean years for the past 15 or 20 years and so far as the estuary of the Slaney is concerned, they have had very lean years. Incidentally, they do not use these monofilament nets in the Slaney Estuary but in Dunmore they seem to be particularly successful.

The Minister has promised an inquiry to decide whether or not these nets should be used and that inquiry may be held in the autumn. It seems to me the decision has been more or less given. The Minister has expressed a view that these nets should not be used. I suggested to the Minister—I do not expect him to change his mind now —on that deputation that these nets should be allowed until the end of the season and then have the inquiry. Now it seems the monofilament net is condemned before the inquiry. There cannot be a proper assessment of the effect of the use of these nets over a period of two, three or four months and nobody could say what the effect on rod fishermen would be. That could be done, not in one season, but only over a number of seasons. The Minister, however, seems to have made up his mind but I must assure him that there will be hardship among net fishermen who believed, and who had evidence, that the monofilament net was good for them and would enable them to catch more salmon.

I urge the Minister to have the inquiry as soon as possible and I also ask him if there is any scheme of compensation, or if there could be one instituted, in his Department to compensate these net fishermen who went to some expense prior to the regulation being made in January in purchasing these monofilament nets. They cannot afford to spend £150 or £160 and then be told by any Minister in a regulation that these nets are banned.

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraigh den Aire agus de Bhord Iascaigh Mhara an bhfuil aon ní beartaithe acu chun cúrsaí iascaireachta a athbheochaint i gContae an Chláir. I láthair na h-uaire is ar éigin is féidir a rá go bhfuil leath-dhosaen ag tuilleadh a mbeatha ar an bhfarraige. Tugaim cuireadh don Aire teacht liom go Contae an Chláir agus treoróidh mé ó Chill Ruis siar cois Inbhear na Sionnaine é. Chífidh sé go bhfuil dhá chalaphoirt i gCill Ruis, ceann amháin i gCaoibhreann, dhá cheann i gCarraig an Chabhaltaigh agus ceann eile i gCoill Bheathach.

Tógadh na calaphoirt sin in aimsir Bhord na gCeantar gCúng d'fhonn caoi a thabhairt d'iascairí saibhreas na farraige a bhailiú agus slí bheatha a bhaint amach cois baile. Chífid an t-Aire creatanna na gcurrach cois claí le h-ais gach caladh díobh i dtreis agam. Ní fheichfidh sé, ámh, clanna na n-iascairí, Gaeilgeoirí óga a bhformór, ag fáil slí bheatha ann. Tá an chuid is mó acu imithe thar lear nó go dtí na cathracha chun an slí bheatha a chealladh orthu cois baile do bhaint amach dóibh féin. Gabhaidh sé ó thuaidh faoin gcósta siar go Cill Cí, Cuisín is go Coillte aniar go sroisfidh sé paróiste Chill Mhic Créic agus chífidh sé an faillí a dearnadh ins na scafairí tréana bhíodh ag treabhadh a gcurrachín caol in aghaidh na dtonn. Cá h-íonadh gur ghéilleadar, ach mo léan; cá h-íonadh go ndeachadar thar sáile uainn!

Le dachad bliain anuas ba bhéas le daoine ón Roinn Iascaireachta teacht go Contae an Chláir chun suirbhéireacht a dhéanamh ar chúrsai iascair-Baile Átha Cliath agus scríobhaidís chugainn agus b'é ba bhun leis ná go raibh meon ná h-iascaireachta caillte ag aos óg an Chláir. Ní rabhadar chomh h-amaideach sin go mbeidis ag brath ar dhaoine óga dul amach i gcurrachín le fuine gréine agus fanúint ar an bhfarraige go breachadh lae, gan díon ná foscadh acu agus filleadh ar maidin agus, bhféidir, gan faic na fríde acu de bharr a saothair.

Is trua liom go raibh orm scéal den tsaghas seo do riomhadh sa Dáil. B'fhearr liom gan é a dhéanamh ach dheineas é i muinín go spreagfadh sé an t-Aire agus Bord Iascaigh Mhara chun rud éigin a dhéanamh chun caoi a thabhairt do dhaoine óga saibhreas na farraige do bhaint amach dóibh féin ar chósta an Chláir.

Mr. James Tully

I live a long way from the sea and I know very little about sea fishing and, therefore, I intend to confine my remarks to inland fishing, with one exception. I should like the Minister to let me know if he has any information about the proposal to erect a fishmeal factory at Mornington, Drogheda; if that proposal which has been heralded in the local papers as an achievement of the present Minister for Defence and the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Gaeltacht, is, in fact, going forward or has it disappeared? Is the rumour true which we have heard that the firm concerned applied for a substantial grant and have not received it and are not, therefore, proceeding with the project?

I ask this because, as the Minister is probably aware, the River Boyne is to be drained under a scheme which is to start some time in 1966. For generations there have been living in Mornington, at the mouth of the Boyne, fishing folk who derive their livelihood entirely from the river. They fish for salmon during the salmon season and pick mussels during the off-season and never seek anything from the State or anybody else. It appears these people would gain very considerably if the fishmeal factory were established on their doorstep but if the Boyne is to be drained and if there is the same result as in the case of other big rivers that were drained, if, in fact, for a number of years the salmon and mussel fishing is to be completely wiped out, there must be some other way by which these people will be allowed to earn their living.

I would suggest to the Minister that this is of vital interest and that an early statement from him would be welcome. Whether the factory is going ahead or not, there must be some compensation arrangements for the people who will, I might say certainly, lose their entire income because of progress. Nobody will object to the arterial drainage of the Boyne because it will benefit so many people further down the river but I am sure everybody agrees that it will be just too bad if this community of roughly 40 families were put out of business for a period of years because of this work, without any compensation being paid to them. If it happened in any other line of industry —at present we hear a lot of talk about redundancy compensation and all the rest of it—the matter would be attended to by the State. Here is a case where it should also be attended to by the State.

I was interested in Deputy Corish's comments on the question of monofilament nets. We have not got them down there yet. We are still using the old type nets. But, over the past few years the amount of salmon being caught by the nets has been increasing, as the Minister is aware. I make no apology for stating that the first people entitled to consideration as far as salmon fishing is concerned are those who make their livelihood by salmon fishing and that their interests must come before those of persons who fish for pleasure. That cannot be denied. It is not as if there were nets stretched across the river for 24 hours of the day to prevent salmon from getting up, because salmon, as those of us who have any little knowledge of them know, are contrary creatures and travel in types of water which other fish may avoid and even at very low tide sometimes salmon find their way up, with the result that quite a considerable number of salmon go up whether fishing is carried out by local fishermen or not.

As far as the catching of salmon is concerned, of course, the Minister has still got the penal clause of twopence per pound which he collects and he states in his brief that he is able to give adequate assistance to the boards of conservators for protection, et cetera. Two things should happen. The 2d. per lb should be discontinued——

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. James Tully

——and we should refund quite a considerable amount of money to people who may on one day have caught half a dozen salmon and for six weeks afterwards have caught nothing at all. It is just too bad that they should be fined for their catch, which is in effect what happens. Do not forget that those who are engaged in salmon fishing depend a great deal on skill but also depend to a great extent on luck. I have watched those people fishing for salmon. I have seen one boat going out and getting a netful of salmon and half a dozen of other people getting nothing at all. On the following tide the people who got the netful of salmon the first time got a netful again. It is pure luck. There are many people who will spend the entire season salmon fishing who will hardly get enough to exist on as a result of their labours. For that reason it is unfair that there should be any penal clause whatever in respect of salmon which is caught.

Reference has been made to river protection and to the protection staff's wages, and to a pension scheme. The wording is pretty peculiar. It would appear that it is only the senior staff who are to be included in the pension scheme. I distinctly remember having an interview with the Minister's predecessor, meaning the person who was then in charge of the Fisheries Section, when a solemn assurance was given that a pension scheme for all fishery protection staff under the Inland Waterways was to be introduced without delay. If the suggestion now is that the supervisory staff and those higher up are to be included in a pension scheme and the ordinary staff, the people who have to control the rivers and who do the major portion of the work, are to be excluded, the Minister should have another look at it.

The water bailiff, as he is usually called, is not the most popular man in a country district because of the fact that it is his job to see that those who have a taste for salmon and have not got a licence do not get any salmon. It has been known on occasions that those people have been attacked and in a number of cases severly assaulted. I know of one case where a man engaged on that work was assaulted very severely and where the culprits were taken to court. Not alone had the man, who had spent some time in hospital, to pay his hospital fee but he had also to pay court charges because of the fact that the local board of conservators had no authority to pay them for him.

If it is suggested that such persons are not entitled to any type of pension after their years of service, I say that that attitude is entirely wrong. I would ask the Minister to consider the matter very fully. If a pension scheme is introduced, as I hope it will be, then it should apply to all the protection staff from top to bottom. The amount of pay they get varies from board to board but there is still the fellow who is being paid an honorarium of something like £5 or £6 a year, I understand. That is ridiculous. Personally, I consider it is waste of time. What you can expect a person to do for £5 or £6 a year at the present time is too ridiculous for words.

It is wrong that people who have to work at all sorts of awkward hours, who have to go out at night, particularly during spawning season, and to stay out in all weathers because the poacher is particularly active when the weather is bad, should be paid a rate which is based, usually, on the local farm labourer's rate. The reason why the farm labourer's rate is selected is that it is the lowest that could be quoted. If there were a lower rate, no doubt it would be selected. When the Minister talks about being in a position to give adequate support to the boards, he should insist that the persons employed by the boards are paid a fair rate of wages for the type of job they are doing.

A few years ago there was a grandiose scheme for fishery protection. It was to be made a national affair. Uniforms were to be issued. Various types of protection were to be given to the staff, and so on. Indeed, some boards were discussing the question of walkie-talkies, and all the rest. That scheme appears to have been abandoned. When it is considered that men are still being paid at such a low rate it is not surprising that there has not been much enthusiasm for such innovations. I am quite sure that the men would prefer, in the first place, to be paid a decent rate for the job.

There are a number of boards and I consider there are two things wrong with them. One is that there seems to be a very haphazard system of election, even under the Consolidation Bill. There should be some other way of electing people to fishery boards. Secondly, I consider that until some compensation can be paid to those who have to leave their place of work to attend board meetings, it will not be possible to get the best type. I was a member of a board at one time. I am no longer. I left of my own accord.

Mr. Haughey

They are paying their expenses now.

Mr. James Tully

What do the expenses amount to? If somebody goes five miles to a board meeting and loses a morning's fishing as a result of it, does that mean he has been compensated for the job he is doing? In the case of a local authority where people have to travel a long journey, they feel that if they get 1/- a mile travelling expenses they are adequately compensated.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

In my county they travel up to 30 or 35 miles.

Mr. James Tully

In the one I am talking about, the fishermen live about two miles from the town. As regards the people who travel 30 or 35 miles, I do not think the expenses would worry them a whole lot. Something should be done about that.

The amount of salmon being caught, of course, depends entirely on the way the river has been dealt with over the years by the local board. We should all pay tribute to the efforts being made to increase the stocks of salmon. It is a well-known fact that the salmon returns to the river out of which he goes and the result is that when a proper system of planning has been adopted, there will be a big return of salmon in the years to come. Most rivers on which this planning system has been carried out have the evidence that the number of salmon coming back has increased immensely.

There is always the thorny problem as to whether the fishing season should open early or close late. My personal view is that it should open as early as possible because while the amount of salmon caught late in the season is far greater than early on, the price paid for salmon at the beginning of the season is far in excess of that paid in the summer and at the end of the season and that more than compensates for the smaller quantity. The season should open as near as possible to 1st January. In my area it does not open until 12th February and it closes on 12th August. In the last couple of weeks a tremendous number of small salmon can be caught but the price at that time drops down to rock bottom. Sometimes in the shops I notice tinned salmon being sold and I wonder if it would not be an idea to encourage the tinning of salmon here. One sees John West Middle Cut, other salmon from Canada or from some other outfit in Japan, but we do not seem to be able to compete.

In the early years of the life of the Fianna Fáil Government, the early thirties, the provision of a purification tank for mussels was suggested for my area. The town of Drogheda is built on the Boyne and the people who planned it were not too careful as to where the effluents from the sewage went. The result is that Boyne mussels, while they are excellent in substance and size, do not appear to be the safest mussels to eat. The local people will eat them without any ill effects because they may be immune to such ill effects. However, would the Minister consider at this stage the question of providing a mussel purification tank? I am sure it would more than compensate over a very short period for the amount of money involved in having it established there. It would mean that instead of having mussels sold as bait, as is done at the present time, and having them taken across to England, Wales or somewhere else, processed there and sold as choice mussels, the local people in Mornington would get some of this fat which appears to be so easily available to other people.

In the fishing villages, there is a tradition that people build their own boats. Has the Minister considered the question of extending this industry? He may say it is a matter for a different Minister but in view of the fact that it applies entirely to fishermen and that at the present time there seems to be a very big demand for boats of this type, particularly on the inland lakes, the Minister might consider the problem and see if some encouragement could be given to the building of these boats and to the creation of some channel through which they could be marketed. It would add considerably to the income of these people particularly in the off season when they have a lot of free time.

Down through the years, there have been discussions in this House as to who should own the inland fishery rights. The Minister should have another look at this problem. There should not be, and there cannot be, any argument against the right of the farmer to own his own fishing rights. It had been the system for some years that the old landlord, when land was divided, held on to the fishing and shooting rights. Then the Land Commission got wise to it and they decided they would take the fishing rights from the landlord and hold on to the rights themselves. The fishing rights of a farm should belong to the local farmer, particularly when one sees that if it is reported to the local board of conservators that a salmon has been caught on a farmer's land, he will get a fishery rate added on to his normal rate in the next season. Many people who have nothing to do with the fishing at all or with the fishery rights on the river passing through their land have had to pay a substantial amount of money by way of fishery rate. If they had the satisfaction either of using them themselves or renting them to somebody else they might be able to recover some of the money concerned.

The amount of the rate is another problem the Minister should examine. There is no point in his saying he is able adequately to help in this matter or to provide the money for these boards, if at the same time letters are sent from his Department telling the boards that if they want to raise their water bailiff's wages or provide some other amenity which is very necessary, they must do it by raising the rates. The rate is far too high at the present time and it is beginning to be something which only the very rich can afford and that is not the ideal situation in Ireland.

I am glad to see the Minister quoting a figure for salmon exports because I do not think it is appreciated that it is such a big item in the country's export figures. The sum of £933,500 for 1964 is a very encouraging figure but when the Minister is expending money on fisheries, he should not think only of sea fisheries—I have steered clear of the question of protection, and so on, because that has been adequately dealt with—but should see that inland fisheries get more money from his Department than they are getting. They should not be given a small amount and told: "You must make the best of that because that is all you will get anyway."

Mr. Dillon

When Deputy Tully was concluding, he spoke of a figure of practically £1 million a year represented by salmon exports. It is the function of the Opposition to criticise but I have had some experience of the Fisheries Branch and I want to say to the Minister for Agriculture that I know the problems with which he has to contend in efforts to promote salmon fisheries. Such efforts are open to every sort of misrepresentation and very often the Minister responsible is submitted to practically irresistible pressures in this regard. Deputy Tully mentioned a figure of nearly £1,000,000 a year for exports and I would ask Deputies to realise that the fundamental conflict in regard to the protection of salmon fisheries is not a conflict between nets and rods. It is not a conflict between poor fishermen and wealthy rod fishermen. It is a conflict between nets and the survival of the river itself.

Nobody's interest is more protected than that of the net fisherman when restrictions are imposed for the preservation of the salmon population of the river the Minister seeks to protect by imposing restrictions requisite to ensure that a sufficient number of salmon pass up the river and that the estuary is not swept clean by those fishing in it. We all know the difficulties associated primarily with the protection of the Foyle fisheries which are now the property of the Irish people, North and South. I myself had personal experience of the acute difficulties that arose there in regard to the licensing of nets on that estuary. Sometimes I think the Minister's Department is a little too rigid in confining licences to certain categories of persons but, in so far as the Minister is advised that the use of monofilament nets jeopardises the ultimate welfare of the river itself, he ought to get the support of all those who are concerned for the welfare of the net fishermen themselves in protecting the river because, if it is not protected, it may take five, ten, or 15 years, but it is absolutely certain that, if the estuary is overfished the people who ultimately will suffer most acutely are the people who habitually get their living from net fishing in the estuary.

There is nothing more difficult than protection of salmon rivers and when we appreciate their immense value to the State not only as a source of export but also because of the attraction they provide for the tourist industry, the Minister is, I think, entitled to a sympathetic understanding on the part of all Deputies who have some acquaintance with this problem in the running battle he has perennially to fight, almost single-handed, for the protection of the rivers and, in the last analysis, for the protection of the fishermen themselves. It is very difficult for a man who is fishing at this particular time to think of posterity but, if his grandfather had not thought of him, or been compelled to think of the men who are fishing today, there would be no salmon for the fishermen today. Unless some steps are taken to protect supplies today there will be no salmon for the grandchildren of the men who are fishing today. It is the Minister's function to think of posterity as well as of those who naturally want to get the maximum catches at this particular time when the price of salmon happily is very satisfactory. I ask Deputies who are concerned in this matter to try to propagate the proposition that the fundamental conflict is not between the net fishermen and the rod fishermen but between the net fishermen and the survival of the river itself, and there is nobody to whom that survival is more important than the net fishermen and those who will come after them.

I always feel, and I felt this when I was Minister for Fisheries, a considerable uneasiness about this business of people having exclusive rod fishing rights on salmon rivers; and that became exacerbated when these rights, which are now of course immensely valuable, were sold or rented to people coming from abroad. It is very important that we should look at this calmly and deliberately in the full understanding of what the position is. We have power under Part V of the Fishery Consolidation Act to buy all these fisheries. We could do so in the morning if we wanted to, but it would be an immensely costly operation and you cannot simply walk in and take from somebody a very valuable asset in the exclusive right to fish on a particular stretch of river and confiscate it. If you want to take it over and make it available to all you have got to purchase it from the owner at a price fixed by an independent arbitrator. It would cost many millions to do that but we have the power under Part V of the Fishery Consolidation Act if we want to do it.

Personally, I do not mind confessing that when I was Minister for Fisheries, I mentally segregated poachers into two categories: the poacher who used explosives or who raided spawning beds in the close season was a person with whom I have no sympathy whatever or the man who used illegal methods of fishing. But, when I hear of some fellow fishing with a rod and line on someone else's water, I cannot pretend to be moved to any violent indignation at all. I feel the fellow who owns the fishery should protect his own interests as best he can against the man who is fishing it by legitimate methods with a rod and line. I readily recognised my obligation, however, as Minister for Fisheries to activate and support boards of conservators in any measures they took against those who used explosives, illegal methods of fishing or raided the spawning beds in the off season. But the person who is much the worst offender is the person who buys poached salmon and I have often thought that our efforts to identify the purchasers of poached salmon and make them liable in law were not sufficiently energetic. There are a great many hotel keepers in rural Ireland who steadfastly refuse to touch poached salmon. On the other hand, there are others who are prepared to traffic in them to the disadvantage of the honest hotel keeper who will have nothing to do with this trade. I am sorry to say that on the occasions we did with great difficulty identify offenders of this class and bring them before the courts we did not get much support from the courts. The fines were ridiculous and I often thought our attitude towards persons who traffic in illegally caught salmon is not sufficiently rigorous because, if there was not a market for illegally caught salmon, the temptation to engage in that activity would not be so great.

I am struck today by the fact that I did not detect that sense of urgency that I feel appropriate to this problem of the disease that has manifested itself in the salmon population of our rivers. When this problem related only to the Waterville area it seemed to be a limited problem, grave certainly but one which could be grappled with. I understand now it has turned up on the Slaney and the Suir and I am consternated to be told that it is apparently impossible to identify the condition even by consultation with authorities elsewhere in the world. I find that hard to believe.

It may be true that the cultures and the examination of scales and even the examination of salmon submitted to these external authorities may have failed to identify the disease. But I do not think that is enough. I think we ought to invite the advice of foreign authorities and ask them to come and examine this problem in situ, because if this is not a bacillus or a mould, it may be related to something happening by way of contamination of our water. It may be if we got a person with experience of salmon fisheries from Scandinavia, the United States or elsewhere to look at the situation in situ, some factor might present itself to a detached observer from outside which would enable him to assist us in the identification of the cause of this disease.

It will be a major catastrophe if this matter is not brought under control. Quite apart from the exports of £1 million annually to which Deputy Tully referred, just imagine the loss that would be involved in every salmon fishery in the country which would become unusable as a result of the spread of this disease. There is no use in our pretending any longer that this is a minor development and that the whole business is liable to settle itself. So long as it was in a very restricted area, that attitude was sensible; but it is no longer in a restricted area. In fact, it would seem to be spreading through the country.

I think the Minister must manifest to this House that he is taking every conceivable measure to identify the cause of this outbreak and bring it under control. He must, I think, satisfy everybody in the country that no vested interest will be powerful enough to prevent him from taking whatever measures may be necessary to put an end to the pouring of any effluent into our rivers or contamination of our water from any source which would operate to spread this pest any further. I know if I were Minister for Fisheries at present, I would be very reluctant to face this House unless I was in a position to say: " Here are all the things I have done. If there is anybody here who will suggest any other step that could be taken to assist in the control of this outbreak, I only want to hear of it. As I have failed so far to bring the matter under control, I am prepared to give any proposal a trial if it is a reasonable one." I would be glad to hear from the Minister a very much more comprehensive and detailed statement in this regard than that he has already made.

I want to raise a question I have often heard Deputy P. O'Donnell speak of here, that is, fishing for lobsters. Salmon is a very valuable export. Lobster is a very valuable export and could be much greater. The very value of an export is one of the inherent dangers in it. I am always a little worried as to whether we are taking proper precautions to ensure that our lobster beds are not over-fished to the point of danger. I have often heard Deputy P. O'Donnell speak of the impropriety of the catching and sale of berried lobster—"berried" and not "buried". I have often heard the experts tell me that that was not a matter of great consequence, that the important thing was to prevent small lobsters being captured and sold to excess. But I will be glad to hear from the Minister his views as of today about the lobster fisheries of this country and the danger of their being over-fished to the point of destruction.

I remember when I was Minister for Fisheries we started the planting of oyster beds in Clew Bay. I do not underestimate the difficulties of establishing new oyster beds. They are formidable, but it can be done. As salmon and lobster exports are valuable, oyster exports could be an immense source of revenue to this country. It takes a long time to establish oyster beds and it takes great care to ensure they are not over-fished and wiped out. I would be glad to hear from the Minister whether he is doing anything about establishing oyster beds, particularly on the west coast. They could be an immense source of revenue once they were established.

I frequently listen to the problems of fishermen and the belief, which I think I heard Deputy Ó Ceallaigh from Clare reiterating today, that our fishing grounds were being devastated by foreign trawlers. I will not follow that question very far because I have been listening to it for a quarter of a century; but I think it would be no harm if the Minister would say a word in conclusion on the general question as to where the real fishing grounds of this country are and to distinguish between fishing grounds for pelagic and demersal fish. Unless I am entirely mistaken, the fishing grounds for demersal fish in this country are mainly on the continental shelf. The continental shelf is more than 100 miles from our west coast and approximately the same distance from our south coast. The bulk of the French and Spanish trawlers that take refuge in our southern ports and fish off the coast are mainly trawlers escaping from storm warnings which they have heard while fishing on the continental shelf 100 miles south of our coast. They run for refuge to our ports and are tempted to fish, sometimes coming in and frequently going out. The bulk of fishing by foreign trawlers in our fishery limits is attributable to that procedure. It is an entirely different question when you are dealing with pelagic fish, herring and mackerel. But I think it would be a good thing if the facts of this situation were reiterated, because I think there is a great deal of false thinking on this whole problem.

The problem of pelagic fish is one which very few people not intimately associated with the industry understand at all. It is an extremely complex business. I remember when I was Minister for Fisheries we established fishmeal plants to take up the surplus herrings. Yet two years after I left office, the herrings disappeared from the North Sea and there was not a surplus of herring any more. The disappearance of the herrings in the North Sea and their appearance in abundance off our coast made all the herrings caught here worth more than a fishmeal factory could afford to pay for them. We would have some idea in regard to the supplies of fish because any morning we might wake up and discover the shoals of herring had left our coast and turned up somewhere else. We might discover in the morning that the shoals of herring had turned up again in the North Sea and we would find then that we had a surplus of herring here. It is no harm for the Minister of Fisheries, from time to time, to expose these fundamental facts and remind, not only the House, but other sympathetic persons in the country of the nature of these problems.

The last thing I want to refer to is the work of the Inland Fisheries Trust. I have always believed you can get much more out of people by praising them when they do well than by abusing them if occasionally they falter.

Mr. Haughey

As the Government?

Mr. Dillon

As the Minister knows, on occasions I have told Macra na Feirme my views on that subject. I want to speak now about the Inland Fisheries Trust. I consider, for a number of years, they have done a marvellous job, particularly in the lakes in Westmeath and Cavan. They have done a considerable job on Lough Sheelin and Lough Derravaragh and other lakes in the area. Some people thought what was being done by the Inland Fisheries Trust in regard to these lakes was a tragedy. Everybody who had a pen and a bottle of ink wrote letters, columns long, to the newspapers to say that the Inland Fisheries Trust had wrought havoc on Lough Sheelin, Lough Derravaragh and Lough Belvedere. They said it was a tragedy that such lunatics were let loose on these valuable waters.

About the third year, these lakes all proceeded to yield astonishing catches of fish. Did the scribes hasten to take their pens and bottles of ink and write that now the work of the Inland Fisheries Trust was coming to fruition? No; they slipped off down to Lough Sheelin, Lough Derravaragh and the other lakes and caught their fish and then came back with their catches on a string to show to everybody. There was no word said about the work of the Inland Fisheries Trust. I remember somebody came to me with one of those catches and I very nearly hit him across the face with it. He was one of those who had written letters to the newspapers against the Inland Fisheries Trust. I consider the personnel of the Inland Fisheries Trust have infinite patience. They do an incomparable job of work and carry out their work despite conduct of that sort. They have done a great job of work on the lakes of our country which is of immeasurable benefit to the country as a whole.

I want to pay a special tribute to the Inland Fisheries Trust on behalf of my own constituency. When I first represented Monaghan, it was one of the counties to derive the least benefit from the tourist industry. No tourists ever went to Monaghan because there was no great attraction there for them. The Inland Fisheries Trust undertook the rehabilitation, not only of the trout lakes in Monaghan and Cavan, but the coarse fishing lakes of those two counties. They are now reported as being model counties in regard to fishing attractions. They attract a large volume of tourists drawn principally from the midlands of England. They stay with local people because they do not want elaborate and extravagant hotel accommodation. They are very happy to live in guest houses to which they return year after year. They fish for perch, tench, bream and pike. They have discovered that fishing facilities are freely available in both Cavan and Monaghan. They have also discovered that the fishing in rural Ireland is superior to anything they can find in England.

This is almost entirely a result of the work of the Inland Fisheries Trust. This House, and the Minister, ought to go out of their way to acknowledge the good work which has been done by this body since its establishment. I do not know the details of deep sea fishing. I understand this is a considerable attraction but I do not think the Inland Fisheries Trust has much to do with it. The Inland Fisheries Trust are fully deserving of every praise in regard to the work they have done. They have succeeded in attracting tourists to fish in our lakes.

I want to make a constructive suggestion to the Minister who is not averse to publicity——

Mr. Haughey

Or accepting constructive suggestions.

Mr. Dillon

——about one form of publicity in which he might legitimately engage. The annual report of a number of Government bodies has, in recent years, become more and more elaborate. I do not know whether that is necessary in regard to Bord na Móna or the ESB, but, in any case, these annual reports are very much more attractive than they used to be. The annual report of the Inland Fisheries Trust is not like one of these reports. It has the hallmarks of extremely limited financial resources. I suggest if the annual report of the Inland Fisheries Trust were more in the form of some of the illustrated and attractively-produced annual reports of other semi-State bodies, it could, with great advantage, be used by Bord Fáilte as part of their publicity literature. I am quite sure the contents of that annual report would come as a bombshell to thousands of people in Great Britain. Further, I feel there are few other places in the world with conditions comparable with what we have here in Ireland who have fishing anything like what we have here.

When you tell people in Great Britain that there are parts of Ireland where trout fishing is free and that in all parts of Ireland coarse fishing is free, they simply do not believe it. It would be a useful thing if the annual report of the Inland Fisheries Trust were made more attractive reading than it is at present and if it were more widely distributed. It would be good for the morale of the Trust and it would be good tourist publicity anywhere it was distributed. I offer this as a constructive suggestion to the Minister in relation to the effective and very valuable work which the Inland Fisheries Trust are doing.

I want to say, in conclusion, a few words about the salmon disease. I deliberately avoided pressing the Minister in regard to this matter in the past because I recognised that undue publicity would not be good and that it would be better if it could be confined to the limited areas in which the disease had shown itself. I considered that would be in the best interests of the salmon fisheries of the country as a whole. I think that time is past. It has now spread. It has now been widely discussed. The time is now here when we should have a very full and exhaustive exposé by the Minister of the position as it stands today and of the prospect he sees of bringing the matter under control. I recognise this difficulty in regard to protecting salmon fisheries from over-netting. I think he may expect from this side of the House the sympathetic understanding of those difficulties and support, when he needs it, for such measures as may be necessary to protect not the wealthy people but the net fishermen and their children and their children's children who depend for their livelihood on the regular supply of salmon which cannot be maintained in any river unless adequate and suitable protection is provided in every year and all the year.

Mr. Davern

I wish to compliment the Minister on the fact that he did not introduce the monofilament net and did not allow himself to be influenced unduly by any deputation urging its retention. As Deputy Dillon has so rightly said, the net fishermen on the estuaries of our rivers must, in fact, at this stage be saved from themselves and from their own avarice. Certainly, the introduction of the monofilament net was a very serious step in the life of the inland fisheries of our country. I have been informed from what is normally a very reliable source that one crew on the estuary of the Suir caught 592 salmon during one period in the river. That surely is more than their fair share of salmon. It deprives the net fishermen who fish the Suir up as far as Carrick, where it is tidal, of even a meagre chance of catching fish while the anglers at Cahir, Golden and Cashel who pay the angling licence fee might as well have a dog licence. Salmon was caught in very meagre numbers by the rod fishermen. It militated against the tourist and the tourist season generally from the point of view of those who would otherwise gainfully be employed by reason of tourists coming into the constituency of South Tipperary.

The net was banned in England. I am sure we can learn much from the experience they have gained there. I am sure, too, that when the Minister holds this inquiry at the end of the year, he will take into consideration the fact that something in the region of 80 per cent of all salmon which come up river are either caught or die from natural causes and that only the fry come back out to sea again and 20 per cent of the old salmon. With the natural hazards of rivers and of the odd poacher that still prevails, these things are serious enough but the monofilament net, unlike the ordinary net, can be fished 24 hours a day even under the brightest skies and is completely invisible in water. The fish have not a sporting chance of getting free and the estuary was barricaded between Cheekpoint and Dunmore East.

Peculiarly enough, the men gaining most out of it and now crying for its retention are the men who, a few years ago, wanted the net banned. At that time, they had not this monofilament net themselves. Since then, they have been able to procure it and now they are loath to give up what to them is a very rich harvest but which will not last if the net is allowed to continue in operation for four or five years. It probably will make salmon fishing on our rivers not worth while. It may even be the cause of extinguishing salmon altogether from our rivers.

The report of the Inland Fisheries Commission was indeed very comprehensive. It stated categorically the beneficial results which would accrue from adequate protection of our fisheries. The wisdom of their deliberations is now being borne out when one considers that angling tourists from the continent and from England are coming here in vast numbers because of the facilities which are readily available to fish on practically every river for the price of the subscription to the local angling club or for a moderate fee even on what are termed private stretches.

I am not unduly disturbed about the disease which is at present in fish in some of our rivers. This is not the first time it has happened. A disease very akin to it appeared in our rivers in the 1880s. The authorities at that time could not find out the cause of it and, indeed, its disappearance was equally unaccounted for. However, it did eradicate itself and vanished from the fish. I think possibly it may have been just one of nature's ways of controlling the numbers of fish or some such thing as that. It is a well known fact that in the animal kingdom these cycles occur. When fish or reptiles become too numerous, nature destroys many of them to ensure that the feeding and the resources they would normally require will be in plentiful supply for those that survive and that there will be a healthier species of the particular animals, fish, and so on, involved.

I should like to convey to the Minister the thanks of the net fishermen of Carrick who received enthusiastically his decision to ban the monofilament net—which, incidentally, is also known as the killer net and that adjective must surely bear a significance to its effect. Their livelihood was seriously being jeopardised. Eighteen families are involved which is no mean number for a small town such as Carrick-on-Suir. I trust that the inquiry which is to be held at the end of the year will pay adequate attention to the needs not alone of a few vested interests which may be on the estuaries but also of those up river, the angler, the net fisherman up river who has the right to fish with nets as far as tidal waters and the conservators who, down through the years have done a very thankless job in the best interests of the community at large with an efficiency and a degree of fairness which it would be very hard to equal. To them, I should like to pay a special tribute, the men who have absolutely dedicated themselves to this job which requires getting up in the morning and staying out late at night in inclement weather conditions when the poachers are at their best. These men deserve the thanks of the community and the thanks of each angler, be he plutocrat or pauper.

In conclusion, I should like to say that I discount this suggestion that fishing and angling as such are the rich man's prerogative. In my area it is the reverse, in fact. It is a poor man's sport, an inexpensive sport which can be enjoyed for the price of a rod and line and it may give untold pleasure to the angler and to his family if he is quick enough to catch a fish, and if he is not, he can always tell the good story about the one that got away.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): My remarks will be limited on this subject as I am not an expert on fishing or fisheries. I would exhort the Minister to make a greater effort to get to the roots of this fish disease problem. Apparently he has called in an expert from Scandinavia to advise on it but if some solution is not forthcoming, I see no reason why he should not look for experts further afield. I would suggest he might consult the biological section of the Department of Agriculture in the United States. It it a very highly skilled organisation and I am sure the Minister will be able to secure advice from other sources as well. Nobody seems to know what the nature of the disease is or whether it has bacterial, virus or physical cause. The time has now arrived when the Minister should take more active steps than he appears to have taken so far on this important matter.

I have a letter of which I think the Minister may already have received a copy. It is from a tourist who has been in Cahir recently—a Mr. Auriol. He is associated with the Franco-Irish Association and is interested in promoting the introduction of visitors here. The letter reads:

I have just spent over a month here and, to my great disappointment, apart from the trout which are plentiful, I did not have the pleasure of landing one single salmon. According to local reports from Cahir, Ardfinnan, Golden and Newcastle, the season was one of the worst ever seen. I quite believe it. I have heard, too, reports concerning diseased fish—all along the Suir. After a personal enquiry it seems that the fish (some of them caught only a few miles from the river mouth) are diseased as they come from the sea. Therefore, it is likely that such a situation will not be found next season but, what is quite sure is that nearly all the fish caught by anglers had traces of nets. I personally went to Waterford and I will say I was somewhat distressed when I saw the river "Black with Nets." I wonder how a single fish can reach Ardfinnan or Cahir.

This situation has already been drawn to the Minister's attention and I think he has received deputations putting forward reverse views. I did understand from him that he extended the estuary net fishing period, in one river, if not in all of them, from January to June at the behest of Deputy Corry. I may not be correct in my interpretation of his statement but that is what I gathered. That was probably a mistake, and I should like the Minister to tell us what his policy in the future in that particular respect will be. It is important for fishing around Cahir.

One other small point which I should like to mention again in reference to salmon fishing in my own locality, particularly Cahir and district, is the local fishing rights. There was a small fishing right there some years ago associated with Cahir estate. The local fishing organisation are anxious to get control of these fishing rights but the Minister's predecessor leased these rights to a London fishing syndicate. Naturally, there was local annoyance and disappointment when the people did not secure these fishing rights.

I made representations to the Minister's predecessor and he told me he had given these rights on the understanding that the group who got the rights were prepared to build a hotel in Cahir and if they did not get this concession, this tourist hotel would not be built and the Minister thought it very desirable to have a hotel built. This group got the concession and apparently that is all that has been done since. I should like the Minister if he has information readily available, to tell us what the present position is in this regard.

Mr. Molloy

I wish to say a few words on this Estimate because I feel our sea fisheries have great potentials for the type of industrial employment which can be provided in isolated areas such as we have along our western seaboard near my constituency of west Galway. In the fishing industry, we have natural wealth on our doorstep, wealth which other nations are well aware of and only too keen to avail of. Indeed over the past number of years, it has been common to hear Irish people make this remark and agree that there is this tremendous wealth on our doorstep. They shrug their shoulders and say that other nations are more aware of it than we are, and do not bother to do anything about it.

This type of remark had been common over the years but I think it is becoming less common nowadays. This is mainly because of the new approach in the last few years by Bord Iascaigh Mhara and because of the encouragement and assistance the Board has been receiving from the Government. There is of course a lot of leeway to be made up in educating all sections of the community in the efforts being made to tap this lucrative industry and on the part the ordinary person can play in this effort. It should be recognised that Bord Iascaigh Mhara today is doing a first-class job in expanding this fishing industry. More publicity should be given to the work of Bord Iascaigh Mhara. This would create goodwill for the fishing industry amongst the people generally.

It should be recognised that Bord Iascaigh Mhara has faced up to the problems which confronted the industry down through the years, and the progress and expansion of recent times are, I feel, heading for a spectacular take-off. In the years ahead the increase in the returns from the fishing industry will cause greater recognition of its contribution to the Irish economy. We will feel proud and will hold our heads high when there is reference to our fishing industry. I hope the progress taking place will continue and I feel a spectacular take-off is coming and that the future of the industry will play a tremendous part in our economy.

I should like to point out, however, that we must remember that we here in Ireland are living in a developing country. In urging, as I now do, an increase in capital expenditure on this industry I should like to remind the Minister not to make the mistake which was made by other undeveloped countries, by the overcrowding of capital investment into a few sectors of the economy to the neglect of other sectors. We are inclined to consider the fishing industry as contributing only in a small way towards our gross national product, and because of that it is not really receiving the proper attention which it deserves. It could contribute a great deal if it got full co-operation. More money will have to be spent to bring about this development.

I should not like the impression to go out that the Fisheries Section is the small fry of the Department of Agriculture simply because it is an added responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. Any Deputy who has studied the Progress Report for 1964 on the Second Programme for Economic Expansion will have noticed that the only industry not living up to the forecast of that programme is the sea fisheries industry. This may be due to the danger I mentioned of overlooking the importance of some industries of which, because of their present small contribution to national production, the great potential is not clearly seen.

It is only fair to state, as the Minister has pointed out, that the heavy fall in landings has been due primarily to the smaller landings in Dunmore East—from 280,965 cwts. in 1960, to 62,237 cwts. in 1964. It must be remembered when these figures are quoted for 1960 that that was an exceptional year for fishing, and the figures for 1962, 1963 and 1964 show an increase over 1961, which was an average year. That large drop was due to the unrest at the port resulting in the withdrawal of Northern Ireland boats, and also of Southern Irish boats by fishermen who did not wish to become involved in the dispute. The number of boats working into Dunmore fell from 96 in 1960-61, including 27 Northern Ireland boats, to 24 in 1964/65. The important thing to remember, however, is that the average landings per boat increased.

This dispute was an unfortunate occurrence, but we must be mainly interested in fish landed by Southern Irish boats. Those are the true figures. Of course, we in this Chamber have jurisdiction only over people living in the 26 Counties, due to another dispute of greater vintage. The potential benefit to the Irish economy of a thriving sea fisheries industry is unlimited. I welcome the step taken by the Taoiseach of coupling fisheries with agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture is responsible for the production of food and the production of fish comes under the same heading. Whether the food comes from the land or is taken from the sea, it should be the responsibility of the same Minister.

Fianna Fáil Governments have always striven to serve all sectors of the community, and they have done so with great success. I am confident that under the Minister's able leadership greater impetus will be provided to bring the fishing industry into line with some of the other great industries which have been developed under Fianna Fáil.

I should like now to refer specifically to my own area. In Galway city we are surrounded by fresh water and sea water, and we have sea fishing and inland fishing. Salmon and trout fishing attract the tourist angler to the area and is at a highly developed stage. There are many lay associations looking after its interests. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the great spirit of co-operation which has existed in the past between the Fisheries Section of his Department and these associations. I appeal to the Minister to give them all the assistance he can, because no more dedicated group of men will he find in the whole of Ireland than the men who carry out the work done by these associations. They are bringing about wonderful developments in fresh water fishing.

They have a grievance over the withholding of the licence for the Oughterard factory in Galway. This difficulty is not insurmountable, and I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for the prompt way in which he has dealt with the problem. There was a certain feeling that the Minister was not prepared to co-operate, but I should like to deny that statement in this Chamber today. There was a difficulty connected with this hatchery and probably political capital was made by some people. If the fish coming from the factory were diseased it was not possible for the Minister to permit the renewal of the licence. However, he has said that he will renew the licence for one further year on the condition that the fault is rectified and he has sent his inspector down to Galway to find and try to rectify the fault. There is nothing more the Minister can do to solve this problem, and I compliment him on the swift and prompt way in which he has dealt with it. I hope the inspector will quickly find the fault and that this hatchery which was built by voluntary subscription many years ago will continue to provide the tremendous service it has provided towards stocking Lough Corrib and the surrounding rivers with trout.

We are very anxious to see progress in the development of sea fisheries around Galway, and progress at a much faster rate. The Government have made a considerable investment through the erection of the Bord Iascaigh Mhara fish processing factory at Galway Harbour. This factory has proved a tremendous success, and it justifies the Board's faith in Galway fishermen. It employs up to 70 people and it pays out over £500 a week in wages. I should add that not a week goes by that we do not see an advertisement in the local papers looking for additional staff. The factory is not big enough to handle the business it could do and I hope it will not be too long before an additional blast freezer is installed. I understand negotiations are already well advanced, and I hope it will be installed within the next 12 months. The sooner it is installed the better, because when we get large catches of fish the Galway factory is limited in the amount of fish it can take because of a lack of storage facilities. The answer to that problem is the installation of additional blast freezers.

The market for fish fingers and crumb fillets processed in the factory is unlimited. They are sold mostly for export. Indeed, Galway fish are eaten and enjoyed as far away as Australia. I state these facts here because the public at large are not aware of the position and because some attempts have been made to smear the activities of this factory in the past. I admire the policy of the Board that this factory must be kept at full production throughout the year, and even if because of the great fluctuations in the catching of fish it finds itself short of fish from the local fishermen, it should scour the horizons until it gets the raw material necessary to keep the production line moving and the people employed there content and permanent in their jobs. It speaks very highly indeed for the very great progress being made in Galway and of the industry of the fishermen there that they only had to call on foreign boats on three occasions to supplement the catches of local fishermen and maintain production at a level rate.

That is my reason for stating all these facts, which one would think would be of local interest only. There have been attempts in the past to make white elephants and political capital out of places where good, solid employment was given. Here, the people of my city are being given employment and I shall not stand for any smear campaign against the activities in that factory. I am glad to see it there, to see so many people employed in it.

I stated earlier that we should all help in the development of our fisheries and when I say "we", I am not speaking just of the members of this House. I appeal to everybody in the country, from the Minister down to the smallest schoolchild, to ensure that the industry reaps the harvest available in our rich waters. Business people in particular throughout the country are very anxious to entice industrialists into their respective areas to set up factories. It is very worthy work. It has been done largely by chambers of commerce and development associations. I suggest to those people that when they sit down at their meetings and make up their brochures to send to foreign parts, especially in Galway, they do not have to look much further than their own shores to see a potential industry in which they should be investing money.

Without the infusion of private capital into our fishing industry, it will not grow quickly enough. Too much is being left in the hands of Government Departments in our efforts to develop fishing. I am a firm believer in private enterprise, private investment, and I am sorry that up to now very little private money has been invested in an industry already there.

Some reference was made to the proposed development of Galway as a major fishing harbour. I understand the proposal awaits further investigation. I can only state that with the development of other kinds which is taking place around Galway harbour at this time, it might be as well if no definite decision were made at the moment. In this regard, I suggest to the Minister—I am not aware of what development plans have been decided on—that he would consider developing the harbour at Rosaveel. Anybody who is aware of what is going on at Galway harbour these days knows of the tremendous development there, knows there is very little space around the harbour for subsidiary factories. If major development occurs at Rosaveel there would be safe anchorage in all weathers for our fishermen and no difficulty about sites for subsidiary factories.

Another point in favour of development at Rosaveel is that it is two hours nearer to the furthest fishing grounds than Galway. That two hour period can be built up to four if you add the return journey which, to my mind, is a complete waste of good fishing time. If no definite decision has been made yet in regard to Galway I suggest that Rosaveel should be seriously considered for major development. I feel sure the Minister will look into this.

Mr. Coogan

The Minister has taken over control of the Fisheries Section which heretofore was administered by a Parliamentary Secretary. In other words, the Department of Agriculture are moving into ground where they do not sow and where only fishermen reap. However, it is a field in which the Minister could do a lot more than has been done. For many years I have agitated—it is on the records of the House—for proper provision at Aran for our trawlers. I was pleased to learn recently that the matter had come to a head but I am sorry to say that another crowd are trying to muscle in on the pier there. I refer to CIE. It is strange to see CIE having a connection with Aran even if they do provide a ferry boat to the islands.

Aran fishermen were allocated a grant, a Gaeltacht grant designed only for Irish speakers, to improve the pier and provide proper berthage for trawlers off the west coast. Now CIE have moved in in an endeavour to have the pier designed strictly to suit their own requirements. I have no objection to CIE getting certain requirements there but if the work is being carried out through a grant aimed at helping Irish-speaking people I do not see why CIE should be allowed to monopolise it. For years the fishermen there have been asking to have an elbow on the pier. I have a letter here, written on behalf of the Aran Island fishermen, which states:

Several years ago the fishermen of this island proposed an extension to Kilronan Pier, incorporating a westward turning elbow to ensure safe mooring and increased berthage for their growing number of modern fishing vessels in all weather conditions, the westward elbow being imperative to eliminate the considerable force of weather exerted by the prevailing West to South-West winds during the severe winter storms experienced on the West coast of Ireland.

The letter is addressed from Gortnagopple and it could have been written in Irish as freely as it has been written in English but those people are beginning to lose faith in Gaeltacht grants because they can be pushed to one side by people like Tod Andrews, who can twist the tail of the Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not introduce personalities.

Mr. Coogan

While I should not, I have done so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not.

Mr. Coogan

We hear a lot of talk about saving the Gaeltacht but I should like to know what steps are being taken to protect our fishing fleet from the weather conditions which can blow up overnight. This plan has been foisted on the people and on their behalf, I can say either do it as they want it or forget about it. I have been long enough agitating for this grant and now we have this other group going to muscle in. That is what it amounts to. I do not mind their getting certain facilities but the provision of this elbow is not too much to expect to help ease the hazards these men have to face from Atlantic storms with blow up overnight.

Reference was made by my colleague to a smear campaign about the fish plant in Galway. That Deputy was not a member of this House when I raised this question. I offer no apology to the Taoiseach, the Minister, or anybody else in this House for what I said and I will repeat it. Fish belonging to Galway Bay trawlers was left to rot on the quays while Spaniards were employed to take in fish. If that is a smear campaign, I am glad to have the taint of that smear. I have evidence: I have photographs and I can prove that the finest fish was left on the quays. If Deputy Molloy wants to deny that, he can do so, but I will bring him before the fishermen of Galway and we will have it out toe to toe.

It was mentioned that there had been only three landings from foreign trawlers in Galway. Three trawlers were landing fish while fish was being refused from the Galway fishermen. How is it that the factory is kept going today? Is it not kept going by the Galway fishermen? What I did was to protest against fish belonging to Galway Bay trawlers either being left to rot or sent to the fishmeal plant. If Deputy Molloy wants to stand over that sort of thing, he can, but he need not refer to a smear campaign. I want no red herrings pulled across my path.

I agree with Deputy Molloy in regard to the improvement of Rosaveel harbour. To make it a major harbour would be another day's work. Improvements are required there in regard to berthage and to help these men to face the hazards they encounter and make life easier for them. The Minister has expressed appreciation of the skippers course in Galway. As one who has been accused of organising a smear campaign, may I say that I have one small boast, that is, that I was one of the Galway Vocational Committee who always assisted in these courses for trainee skippers. That would hardly be the mentality of a man out to smear any of our fishery efforts.

I see in the Minister's statement that an alternative site is being sought for the Fishery Research Station at Galway. I should like to know why an alternative site is required as there is a vast site on the Renmore side of Galway.

I should also like to know what further steps have been taken to extend the fishery harbour at Galway. Is this pie in the sky or one of the baits thrown out at election time? Recently a deputation went from Galway to the Minister to consider the licence for the trout hatchery on the Corrib. The Corrib Anglers Association have done trojan work and I can assure the House that the greatest things in this country have been achieved by voluntary effort—our freedom was achieved by voluntary effort—and now the work these people have done is to be thrown overboard by the Minister. It is rather galling that a deputation headed by some of the Minister's colleagues should be highly insulted by the Minister.

I am sorry the Minister is not here, I would give him word for word what is quoted in our local press about what the Minister said to this deputation. When they gave the Minister a document, he threw it down on his desk and said: "If you think I am going to read that, you have another guess coming." If that is the way the Minister is going to approach the people, I must say that he is a rather haughty Haughey. He will not get away with that kind of treatment. I would advise the Minister to take his hands off the Corrib. If he thinks he is going to deprive Corrib anglers of what they have built up, and of something which is a great asset to the tourist trade in the west, he is making a big mistake. If the Minister wants to tie up the Corrib for the Taoiseach and his Dublin tycoons——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the Estimate.

Mr. Coogan

It arises on the Corrib.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should relate his remarks to the Estimate.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Like the mayfly, the Deputy rises once a year.

Mr. Coogan

The Taoiseach's friends will——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is disorderly to refer to the Taoiseach's private friends or private affairs.

Mr. Coogan

Whenever the trout rise, they are inclined to rise.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should leave personalities out of his remarks.

Mr. Coogan

The Corrib is known as one of the best free fishing rivers in Western Europe. For the Minister to treat a deputation in such a fashion is a disgrace and I want to protest.

I would like the Minister to take a second and final look at the question of Kilronan harbour. I raised this question in this House on occasions during the past ten years, long before my colleague left the infants' class, and I should like to see it brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I hope the Taoiseach will take particular notice of the Corrib question.

Finally, it has been reported that there have been very poor salmon catches in the western rivers. There is a view that the western coast is being gutted by Danish drift fishermen, and if that is correct, they can play havoc with our greatest industry, tourism, in the west. I should like to see this matter being investigated and if it has to be taken up at international level to have it straightened out, the Department should do so right away. That is all I wish to say. I hope the Minister will take note of my two points in regard to the Corrib and to Kilronan harbour which will be rather sore points before very long.

Mr. Moore

Last week the Minister issued a public notice banning the use of the monofilament net, with which we all agree, but unfortunately one newspaper published the heading "Minister Bans Drift Net Fishing". In my area, in Ringsend, there are a number of drift net fishermen and when they read this, they thought the Minister had gone mad. Despite the fact that through the board of conservators, we asked the newspaper to correct their report, it has not been done and I have had to write to the fishermen to tell them what the Minister has done. He is banning the use of the monofilament net but they can get the annual licence to fish from now until 15th August with the ordinary hemp net.

I am not sure if the Minister has power to deal with the preservation of rivers, particularly the Liffey. Dublin is probably unique: it is probably the only European capital with a salmon-bearing river running through its centre. Despite the damage done by hydro-electric works in the upper Liffey and pollution, a sizeable number of salmon is caught by drift net fishermen and anglers. Last year a factory on the upper Liffey, through a mistake, discharged a huge amount of cyanide into the river. This would be fatal not only to fish but to any form of animal life coming in contact with it. The board of conservators, which is a voluntary body endeavouring to preserve fish in the river, find that it is almost impossible to bring a prosecution against people who do this kind of thing. You may have great evidence but whether it is because the law is archaic or not, we find it very hard to bring these people to justice. Perhaps the Minister would consider this point when introducing future legislation.

Finally, I see the fishery research vessel, Cú Feasa, very often lying at Ringsend, which is part of my area, and I should like to know if there is any publication setting out the work which this vessel has carried out since she was assigned to this task.

Mr. Andrews

Having heard Fine Gael speakers refer to Danish drift fishermen poaching—I suppose that is what it is—on Irish fishing grounds, I wonder why there is not a heading for fishery protection in the Fisheries Estimate. However, I did see in the booklet Second Programme for Economic Expansion, under the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, 1964, that fishing limits have been extended from three miles to 12 miles, exclusive within six miles and with limited rights from six miles to 12 miles. Before this Act, we had to cover some 7,000 square miles but now, as a result of the Act, the mileage to be covered is considerably greater.

Not being an expert on fisheries— my colleagues may be able to help me in this respect—I believe that the problem is largely one of equipment and personnel. May I suggest to the Minister in regard to fishery protection that he should purchase in future small warships of the motor escort type? These ships would have the speed and I believe they would have the weapons and equipment required: they have reasonable accommodation and endurance and reliability to enable them to carry out lengthy patrols. Such ships should carry out regular patrols dictated by reports from all reliable sources.

The number of ships would depend on the type of coverage required, but in present conditions, it is difficult to see how an efficient patrol could be maintained with fewer than four or five. I agree that we have other priorities and that this is for the future. The unpalatable fact is that such a force cannot be provided without considerable expenditure. The fact must also be faced that if the fishery industry is to develop as it should, the protection should be forthcoming. Our fishing grounds must be given adequate protection.

There is also the problem of interesting people in our fisheries. It will be generally agreed that visitors, such as tourists, have often commented on how little is the interest we take in the sea and the benefits and harvests to be derived from it. It appears to me that the place to begin to interest our people in fisheries, fishery protection and the naval service, is the schools. If the Minister appointed mobile teachers qualified on the subject of fisheries in every respect and if they went through the schools and spoke to fifth year and sixth year students, outlining the great career the sea offers—and it is a healthy career and I believe one with a great future, taking into account modern equipment—I think those boys would be very keen to know what is available to them in this way. If ten or 12 such teachers were appointed, they could give information drawn up by the Department and it would be a tremendous benefit.

We have a good deal to learn from religious orders. When I was at school, one of the great religious orders regularly sent around recruiting sergeants——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

They were not very successful in your school.

Mr. Andrews

They were, in fact, although not in my case. In this regard I think we should take a leaf from the book of the religious orders. Another very good effort could be made through the schools by establishing a troop of sea scouts in every sea-side village. There is no better way of interesting young boys in seafaring. Apart from other considerations, the sea offers a tremendous source of pleasure and recreation and it has been said, and will be said again, that recreation in the future will be a problem not merely for juveniles but also for adults. It would have tremendous results if the Minister invoked the aid of the schools to establish sea scouts. The amount of equipment required in the way of boats and so on would be very little and it would be a great stimulus to interest in the sea.

I am glad to say that I am a member of the Inland Fisheries Trust. I do a lot of my fishing on Lough Sheelin. Here they are to be congratulated. They have done a first-class job on this lake.

I notice that the estimated income from angling tourism rose to over £3 million in 1964 as compared with £1,760,000 in 1963. What has been happening over the years? Why have we not been giving more consideration to the question of angling tourists? I am glad to see now that the Inland Fisheries Trust and its concomitant bodies, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and Bord Fáilte, are all doing a great deal in this respect. It is a new realisation, a new awareness, under the heading of angling tourism. I would ask the Minister to pay particular attention to this question.

I have read the report on manpower policy by the National Economic Council and would refer the Minister to page 19 paragraph 26, which is the fourth point therein. It is set out in that paragraph that more attention should be paid to vocational guidance to ensure that the worker finds a job for which his qualities and capacity best suit him. I use that recommendation in support of my point in relation to career guidance in our schools.

I would ask the Minister favourably to consider and, no doubt, seriously, the points I have made.

Again, may I congratulate the Minister on his appointment? Not being a member of an agricultural constituency, my opinion is that he is doing a great job and putting a lot of energy into his Department. I am sure that under the heading of fisheries he will work with equal vigour and energy. I thank the House for listening.

Mr. Haughey

I want to say that I welcome the manner in which the House in general has received this Estimate and I want to thank all those Deputies who have spoken and who have put forward constructive suggestions of one sort or another. I may not deal with them all in my reply now but I should like to assure all the Deputies that, although I may not actually refer to them, nevertheless, everything that has been said will be carefully considered and all the suggestions put forward will receive serious consideration.

May I mention a few specific points which have been raised by individual Deputies? Possibly, I may take the last one first. Deputy Andrews referred to the Inland Fisheries Trust and the work which is being done by that body. Deputy Dillon also drew attention to this aspect. I want to say that it is very encouraging to know that the magnificent work which is being done by the Inland Fisheries Trust is appreciated by Deputies and I am sure that fact will be a source of encouragement to the Trust in the work they are doing. I, personally, simply want to associate myself with the tributes paid to that body by Deputies.

Deputy Andrews mentioned the question of protection of our waters. This, of course, is primarily a matter for the Minister for Defence. It is the Minister for Defence who must provide the wherewithal to defend our territory, whether it be land or sea and in this regard as Minister responsible for fisheries, I rely on his Department to provide our fisheries with the appropriate protection. As has become clear in this year on many occasions, there are great difficulties in this whole problem and the Minister frankly admits, I think, that he does not cope with this matter as adequately and as comprehensively as he would like. Of course, the extension of our territorial waters by the Act of 1964 has made the problem even greater in scope. This is as I say, primarily his responsibility but it is one in which I also have an interest and we shall have to continue to see in future what we can do to improve the situation.

The question of the use of monofilament nets has been raised and, of course, as in most fishery matters, two diametrically opposite points of view have been expressed. In this regard, I feel I should reiterate and emphasise what Deputy Dillon has said that, ultimately, if we were by negligence of any kind to allow the salmon stocks in any river to depreciate it would be the net fishermen who would be the real losers and when we introduce measures of one sort or another for the protection of stocks in rivers it is, in fact, in the long term for the benefit of all concerned that these measures should be taken.

All that has happened in regard to these monofilament nets in this year is that we have introduced a short term ban which will run from now to the end of the season and between now and the end of the season, and immediately on the ending of the season we will instigate a series of public enquiries to determine what is to happen in future. These public enquiries will enable all interests concerned to come forward and give their views and on the basis of all the views that are put forward and the assessment that we make of those views, decisions will be come to for the future.

As Deputy James Tully is in the House now, I shall refer to the question which he raised about the fishmeal factory at Mornington. This project is still on the mat. There is a project to have a fishmeal factory at Mornington developed by a private concern. There are a lot of points which have to be cleared in regard to the project. Some differences of opinion as to the size that it should be and other matters of that sort are still under examination and discussion and I am not in a position to say at this moment when the project is likely to come to fruition but I just want to inform the Deputy that it is still on the stocks.

Deputy James Tully also mentioned the question of the reorganisation of the staffs of boards of conservators and of providing a proper system of remuneration and pensionability for them. I fully agree with Deputy Tully as to the necessity to get on with this job because in a modern community I do not think we can contemplate the present archaic sort of staffing arrangements continuing. We must proceed as quickly as possible to get these staffs reorganised and put on a proper basis. I understand, however, that this task will have to be proceeded with in stages. Apparently the first stage is to get the supervisory staffs on a proper footing and then proceed to the next stage of dealing with the problem of the temporary staffs, the inspectors, and so on, who are employed on a part-time basis.

Mr. James Tully

Will this require legislation?

Mr. Haughey

It will require finance anyway, and it will require legislation.

Mr. James Tully

If it requires legislation, how does the Minister envisage taking it in stages?

Mr. Haughey

The legislation would cover everything, but the mechanics of the operation could be taken in stages.

Mr. James Tully

I do not expect the £6 a week men will be included in it anyway.

Mr. Haughey

Mention has been made of Dunmore East. Works are contemplated for Dunmore East at an estimated cost of £250,000. As well as that, a comprehensive piece of legislation is in the course of preparation which will give the Minister full power to control and manage the major fishery harbours. This is a very important corollary to the development work which has been undertaken in regard to our fishery harbours and I hope that when the development work at Dunmore East is completed, there will be ample scope and facilities there for all sections concerned and that any disagreements which exist at present will disappear. I think it would be the wish of Deputies on all sides of the House that the situation in Dunmore East should be resolved, and I would welcome the constructive efforts that anybody would make in this regard.

Deputy Dillon raised the question of the present worrying outbreak of disease in some of our salmon rivers. I want to assure him that this problem is engaging our full and anxious attention at the present time. We are doing everything we possibly can to find out the cause of the outbreak. However, I should like to emphasise that so far nobody has developed a method of dealing with an epidemic or a disease in fish. It is difficult to see in what way this sort of disease or epidemic could be tackled. Most of the remedies that one thinks of in regard to the outbreak of disease in livestock on land do not apply to salmon, trout or other fish. In any event, a variety of agencies and laboratories are working on the problem, and although we have not been able to get from these people any definite conclusions, we are continuing our efforts. Deputy Dillon suggested that we might get some experts from abroad to come and look at this problem on the spot. I do not know that there is any benefit likely to be derived from doing that but it is something we shall certainly be thinking about, and if it appears to us that there is anybody anywhere in the world willing to come here and help us we certainly will not refuse to avail of his services.

Mr. Treacy

Before the Minister passes from that subject, would he like to comment on the extent of this disease? How many rivers are affected? I am concerned about the Suir.

Mr. Haughey

There are quite a number of rivers in Kerry affected, and the Suir is also affected. I think we could describe the situation as serious and worrying but certainly not widespread. There are indications that catches by rod in most areas have not been affected by the disease. When it was isolated in the beginning in one river, it was the cause of some concern but now that it has been discovered in a number of other rivers, it could be described as serious. I am a little inhibited in talking about this subject because no matter how practically or rationally we may discuss it in this House, Deputies will know that these are matters which are very often taken up by foreign correspondents of newspapers and exaggerated and I would be very much afraid that harm might be done to our tourist angling business by unduly stressing the seriousness of this outbreak. Deputy Davern is right when he says it is not the first time this type of epidemic appeared in our waters. It is true there was an outbreak of it in the 'eighties of the last century in England and possibly here.

Deputy Coogan, who has the distinction of having made the only unconstructive contribution to the debate today, mentioned the hatchery at Oughterard and my reception of a deputation which came to see me about that matter. I do not think the deputation have anything to complain about because they asked me to take a certain line of action and I met them on their request. They asked that their licence be continued and I agreed to that. I also decided that an immediate inspection of the hatchery should be made with a view to assessing what reconstruction of it was necessary to ensure that it would be able to function properly, and an inspector has since gone down from my Department to make that investigation. Therefore, the deputation got exactly what they sought when they came to me. Perhaps it would have been more politic for me to pretend that I could understand a great deal of scientific and technical data which the deputation wished to unload upon me, but I think they should have been satisfied with getting what they were looking for, without, at the same time, insisting on my absorbing a vast quantity of technical data which I was not at the time in a position to absorb.

Deputy P. O'Donnell asked about the administration of the sea fisheries division of my Department and the role of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is my idea that the fisheries industry should be looked after by the Minister personally. I think it merits the attention of the Minister. My Parliamentary Secretary will be mainly concerned with the problems of the west of Ireland and its development. To that extent, of course, he will have a general interest in fishery matters but his main efforts will, we hope, be directed to the solution of the particular problems confronting the west and the small farmers of the west.

I shall conclude by saying once more how much I appreciate and value the contributions that have been made by the different speakers and the suggestions they put forward. In particular, I appreciate the kind remarks about the Inland Fisheries Trust. I want to assure the House now that this Government are conscious of the fact that we have in our fisheries, both inland and sea, a very valuable natural asset and we are determined, as a Government, to exploit this natural asset to the greatest possible extent. It will be our earnest desire to develop our sea and inland fisheries to the maximum.

Mr. James Tully

Would the Minister say whether or not he will consider the question of a purification tank for mussels at Mornington? That has been on the stocks for a long time.

Mr. Haughey

I certainly will. There is one purification plant certainly.

Mr. James Tully

In Kerry.

Mr. Haughey

Yes, in Kerry. We will certainly consider favourably the Deputy's little pocket at Mornington.

Vote put and agreed to.