Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Dec 1933

Vol. 17 No. 26

Sea Fisheries Protection (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

On this Bill I want to deal, in the first place, with exclusive fishery rights. It is accepted internationally that exclusive fisheries extend to a limit of three miles from the coast all round and also within a point not measuring ten miles across. The position, however, although generally recognised, has been a matter of consideration by a committee appointed by the League of Nations, which has not yet come to any conclusion with regard to alteration of those limits. A Convention was agreed to at The Hague in 1882, and it was subsequently ratified by an Act which went through the British Parliament. Practically all countries bordering on the North Sea, and all countries that we have to deal with, which trawl in our waters, were parties to that Convention, so that until some further agreement is reached by the League of Nations we can rely on the three-mile limit as the basis of legislation here. In order to deal with foreign trawlers we had, up to the present, to rely on the Act of 1883. That Act was brought in to implement the Hague agreement of 1882. The penalties for infringement of the Act were very small. That was our trouble. The penalties were £10 for the first offence, and £20 for a subsequent offence. It was found by the Fisheries Department that it paid foreign trawlers very well to infringe the law and to pay the penalties because they were so small. Acts have been passed dealing with trawling. The Principal Act was passed in 1889, and was amended two years afterwards by another Act, imposing penalties of £5 for a breach of the by-laws. As that penalty was quite insufficient to deter steam vessels from trawling in prohibited areas the amount was increased to £100. That Act gave power to serve a summons on the owner of a trawler within the then United Kingdom. The Act has been practically inoperative since 1923, because the Free State Government has no power to serve a summons on the owner of a British steam trawler, and has no jurisdiction to serve a summons within the United Kingdom. As these are the principal difficulties we have been up against, this Bill has been introduced to deal with them.

The Bill proposes severe penalties, whether the offender is registered in the Saorstát or outside the Saorstát, whether caught fishing in waters within the three-mile limit, or hovering in these waters, unless hovering there for a legitimate purpose. There is an international understanding that foreign vessels can call to a port for shelter in bad weather, or for repairs, or in case of sickness on board, and matters of that kind. Of course, these matters will be exempted under this Bill. We are taking power, however, to see that when they have done their business they must leave, and not hover around. The penalty for a first offence in the case of a vessel hovering within forbidden waters is £50, and for a subsequent offence £100. In addition, if there is fishing gear found on board it can be forfeited. Under the Bill the Minister is empowered to make by-laws under which it is forbidden to use in the area specified in the by-laws trawl nets, seine nets, or other prohibited nets that can be hauled along the sea floor by boats of a class to be specified. The principal class of vessels to which the by-laws will apply are those driven by mechanical power, coal, oil or electricity. Some of the by-laws, of course, only refer to steam trawlers, so that new vessels driven by oil or by electricity do not come within the definition of previous legislation. The penalty for a first offence for trawling is £200, and it is increased to £500 for a subsequent offence. The fishing gear will be forfeited and, in the case of a third offence, where we have the same owner in the three cases, the vessel itself can be forfeited. These penalties are to apply to vessels whether owned by Saorstát citizens or owned by people outside the Saorstát.

The Bill will be enforced by Saorstát sea officers and, as will be seen, these will be composed of the Gárda Síochána, of appointed officers of the Defence Forces, officers taken from the Department of Industry and Commerce, and officers from the Fisheries Department. These officers will be invested with very full powers with regard to the right of search, the right to examine and interrogate persons on board, the right to examine all documents, log books, etc., and the right to bring a vessel to port, in case they are not satisfied with the explanation given. They can also pursue a vessel which is caught fishing within the limit. Of course, a vessel may, within a few minutes, put herself outside the limit when pursued, but under this Bill our patrol vessels will be able to pursue the offending vessel as far as is necessary in order to capture her. They may arrest and bring the vessel back to port. Powers are also taken in the Bill with regard to detention. A boat may be detained until the case is tried by the District Court and, in case a fine is inflicted, may be detained until it is paid. If there is an appeal to a higher court the boat may be detained until satisfactory sureties are offered for the appearance of the accused at the higher court. There is also power to forfeit the vessel if the fine is not paid.

Another matter dealt with concerns some foreign trawlers that are in the habit of dimming their lights at night, so that they cannot be identified, or of covering the number plates and identification marks by day, by hanging tarpaulin or something over them, so that they cannot be identified unless pursued. There will be heavy penalties for such offences. Of course, that is an offence in itself under the Merchant Shipping Acts. These Acts apply to British vessels and the matter can be taken up, but if they do not come under the Merchant Shipping Acts foreign vessels may be taken up and fined for attempting to obliterate the identification marks. These are the principal matters dealt with. The Bill has been brought in to protect the rights of our own fishermen in the in-shore fisheries, and I have no doubt that every member of this House will be in favour of it. If any suggestions can be made towards improving the Bill we will be only too glad to consider them.

I wish to welcome this Bill. I live near the sea and I am very intimate with numbers of fisher men around the coast. I have always been in sympathy with their hard lot. I hope the full penalties will be enforced on people who are caught trawling. We have a great deal of trouble with them off the coast. The lobster fisheries off Wexford are very valuable, but they have been seriously hampered by trawlers. For that reason I hope when these people are caught they will be severely dealt with. The Sea Fisheries Act, which was passed by the former Government, did a great deal to help the fishing industry, and I hope that this Bill will do still more. There is a great hindrance to the industry still because there are heavy tariffs against fish sent across the Channel. As we sell practically all our lobsters in England the heavy tariff there has caused greater loss than was caused previously by the trawlers. Until that is removed, there will not be very great prosperity amongst the lobster fishers, at any rate, so that this Bill, I am afraid, will not help them to the extent that we would like. The trawlers have been particularly busy off the Saltee Islands and during the lobster fishing season, incidents have happened there which might astonish the House if they were related. I think I mentioned on a former occasion that the French trawlers added insult to injury by going on the island and killing the birds there which are preserved by law and using them for bait in the lobster pots. On one occasion, when the Muirchu caught a trawler, the Guards from the Kilmore Quay station went out and seized the French lobster pots and found in them the bodies of the birds. We then knew that they had been going on to the islands and taking the birds. I am rather doubtful as to the powers of the boats to catch the trawlers. That has been the difficulty. We have no means of catching them and I am afraid that the patrol boats will not be able to do it. However, I hope that things will improve under this Bill and I welcome it very sincerely. It is not often that I have a word of praise for the Minister for Agriculture, but I welcome this Bill and I hope it will improve the lot of the fishermen.

I should like to ask the Minister what the cost of the Sea Fishery Department is.

The administrative cost is about £9,000.

The sea fisheries, 30 or 40 years ago, were a tremendous source of revenue to the country and they have been steadily becoming extinct. I think that a sum of £9,000 on an expenditure such as the Free State has is contemptible to deal with such an industry as that with which we are dealing here to-day. No later than less than a year ago, I was standing at a point between Ballycotton Island and Roche's Point, a stretch of the coast of, say, 10 miles, and I counted eight trawlers, not one of them, I should say, outside the three-mile limit. What I should like the Minister to explain is, if I were a Guard officer, how I could catch those eight trawlers? On that occasion, I motored on to Ballycotton and one of those trawlers came into Ballycotton and loaded up with fresh vegetables and milk—a perfectly legitimate thing and desirable, I should say, from our point of view—but so far as I could see, a Guard officer had no opportunity, unless they came in after trawling, of catching them. I think it would not be very expensive for the Department to establish patrols at, say, the places at which we have at present lifeboat stations. It would amount to a very small sum of money and I am firmly convinced—when I say that I am firmly convinced, I mean that all the fisher people around the coast are firmly convinced—that the cause of the decline in fishing is this power trawling that has been going on immediately inside our headlands, and I would suggest that the Minister ought to spend liberally to prevent this happening.

Another thing to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention is that there is apparently no control over the lobsters that are taken and I think that it will be found that nearly half the lobsters on sale are generally those that are about to spawn. I think that that fact is a serious obstacle to the possibility of having a large number of lobsters. In other countries—America, I believe—they go to the extent of having lobster hatcheries. Whether that is an advantage or not, I am not prepared to say, but I should be very glad to know if the Department has examined the possibility of having lobster hatcheries around the coast. The same thing applies to oysters. Of course, the French are really the greatest experts in fishing in the world and they spend enormous sums of money. At Arcachon, they have oyster beds that are famous all over the world and the result is that they produce oysters that are perfectly free of all traces of typhoid fever and other diseases. They supply practically all France with those oysters. I am not expert enough to say whether an oyster bed can be planted but I have no doubt in the world that when we have such places as Galway Bay, Kenmare River and places around Cork such as Oysterhaven, it would be very easy to reestablish this most profitable and valuable industry. I make these suggestions to the Minister and I think that the fishing folk are entitled, at his hands, to have a very thorough investigation of the possibilities I have suggested.

I think this is a very good Bill and a very necessary Bill, and I rise only to reinforce the remarks of the last two speakers and to urge on the Minister that while the publication of a piece of paper like this and the giving of these particular powers to officers in the Free State are most excellent, we would like to be assured that there will be the means of enforcing what is contained in this Bill. We believe at the present moment, that the means are not there, and whatever protection vessels there are at the moment—and I believe there are very few of them and only one big one—I think it is essential that the Department should consider spending more money in increasing the number of fast vessels by purchase, or in some other way which would make this Bill an actuality and not simply a piece of paper on our statute book.

With regard to the question raised by Senator Crosbie, I stated that the cost of the Fishery Department was £9,000. That is the administrative cost, but in addition to that, there is a sum of £60,000 voted annually to the Sea Fisheries Association for the development of fisheries. I thought that the Senator wanted to know what the Department was costing in officials. The Muirchu costs about £8,000 as well, so that there is more being spent on the development of fisheries than the figure I gave would lead one to believe. We are voting £60,000 a year now to the Sea Fisheries Association. With regard to the matter of having more patrol boats, I think it is the view of those who know most about the fisheries that it requires boats of the type of the Muirchu to deal with these trawlers. I think Senator Miss Browne is right when she says that small motor boats would not be very effective, but it is rather difficult to justify getting more boats of that type in view of the size of the industry we have here. The actual cost of another boat like the Muirchu would be about £40,000, and the total output of the fishing industry is only about £75,000. So that taking those figures— £9,000 for administration, £8,000 for the Muirchu, £60,000 for the development of fisheries—in an industry worth £75,000, it would appear that we are spending as much as can be justified. If things were looking better in the fishing industry, however, I think we in the Fisheries Department would make an attempt to get more money for protection. It is quite possible they may improve as times go on. The big difficulty about the fisheries is that it is the herring and the mackerel fisheries that have principally gone down. They are not, of course, so much affected by trawlers, but the world market for these two kinds of fish has gone down very much. Russia, Germany, the United States and some of the bigger countries which took big supplies of herring and mackerel from us are now supplying themselves, and they do not want ours any longer. It would appear now as if the herring and mackerel fisheries are gone, with very little hope of reviving them unless there is a change in conditions in the big world markets.

Senator Crosbie referred to lobsters. We have only power, under present legislation, to deal with the size of the lobsters that can be marketed. We can prevent the marketing of small lobsters, but we cannot stop the marketing of spawning lobsters. There is a Bill at present under consideration dealing with the matter, and I promise the Senator to look into the matter to see if that Bill can be brought forward at an early date. Of course there is no lobster fishing at the moment. The matter of oysters was also raised by Senator Crosbie. The Department is doing some little bit for the oyster fisheries in the Lee at present, but there appears to be a plague amongst oysters here, in Great Britain and in other places at present. They are not increasing, and until we get at the bottom of the trouble, it does not appear that we can get the oyster fisheries back to their former position. The trouble has not been cleared up at present.

The only other question raised was whether this Bill would do any good. I think this is the right end to start at, to take powers to deal with the trawlers. We have, for instance, taken power whereby even a small boat may go out, identify one of the trawlers and report the matter. Then within the following four or five weeks the Muirchu may come along and take that boat into custody, make the necessary charges and have these very severe penalties inflicted. We depend to a great extent on the very severe penalties, and I think if we can catch out a few of these trawlers, and get these very severe penalties inflicted, that it will terrorise other offenders into obeying the law. If that is not sufficient we must, of course, consider the acquisition of other boats of the type of the Muirchu.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 13th December.
Barr
Roinn