Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 34 - 26 March, 1930

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 54—Fisheries and Gaeltacht Services—(Resumed).

[30] Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £28,270 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1931, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tailte agus Iascaigh agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na bOifige sin.

That a sum not exceeding £28,270 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, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, and of certain Services administered by that Office.—(Minister for Finance.)

Debate resumed on amendment:—

That the Estimate be referred back for re-consideration.—(Deputy Derrig.)

Mr. Corry: On Friday last I was endeavouring to put an end to the uninterrupted slumbers of the Fisheries Department. I hope what I said on that occasion will be taken to heart by the Minister. It seems rather extraordinary, when we remember that the Minister for Fisheries is also Minister for Lands, that the strange state of affairs on the River Blackwater continues to exist. Although four Land Acts have been passed by the Party opposite in the last seven years, in connection with each of which they boasted that they were getting rid of landlordism, still we have the strange state of affairs existing there that the tenants who are paying rent for half the river are not allowed the fishing rights. Despite the fact that two Acts were passed which were supposed to give them the fishing rights, within the last three months the landlords were enabled to get an injunction in the High Court against these tenants to [31] prevent them from going within seventeen feet of the river. I echo Deputy Daly's hope that the Minister will do something in connection with this matter. These tenants have carried on a long fight, and compulsory Land Acts have been introduced to compel them to purchase, whether they liked it or not. Those rights are now going to be filched away from them by a so-called national Government. However, I have a warm corner in my heart for the Minister for Fisheries —I think he is the best of a bad lot. I do not believe he is asleep himself, but I hope he will wake up his Department and try and get them out of that uninterrupted slumber which they have been in for seven years.

I hope Deputies who made complaints two years ago, and whose complaints I listened to again during last week, will give up the rôle of coming here every year and making some complaints and then walking into the Lobby after the Minister for Fisheries and voting for his Estimate. The only way in which they can get any satisfaction is by showing the Minister that there is a limit to their endurance and not be coming here year after year with the same complaint. I hope these Deputies will have the backbone to go into the Lobby and vote against this Estimate and prove, when they come here and make complaints, that they will not ignore those complaints themselves by voting for the Estimate. I hope we shall hear Deputy Carey, for instance, at some length in connection with these matters. I had hoped that this Estimate would be left to a free vote of the House. I am sorry it is not. Of course, when the whip is cracked Deputies on the other side have to obey the Party Whip.

Mr. Cassidy: There is a proverb which states that hope deferred maketh the heart sick. I think that this maxim applies very aptly to the people of the Gaeltacht generally and to fishermen in particular. Year after year, when this Vote has been before the House, promises have been [32] made and hopes inspired in the breasts of the fishermen and, as time went on, these hopes have been blighted. This Vote has been referred to as the “Annual Estimate for Fisheries and Gaeltacht Services.” A more appropriate name for it would be “the annual Estimate for excuses and unfulfilled promises,” because the fishermen themselves believe that a cran full of performances is worth a trawler load of promises. Up to the present there have been only promises. The fishermen are sick, sore, and tired listening to these promises which have been unfulfilled.

It is my intention to vote for the motion that this Estimate be referred back for further consideration, in the hope that the Minister for Finance will allocate more money to this Department in order to carry out in an efficient manner the Gaeltacht services, and also to endeavour to improve the fisheries. My principal reason for voting in that manner is because I believe the amount we are asked to vote is insignificant in comparison with the amount required, if we desire to place the fishing industry on a sound basis. The total amount of this Vote is £47.270, and that is both for fisheries and Gaeltacht services. Upon examination we find that £29,241 is swallowed in salaries, wages, allowances, and travelling and office expenses. That means that approximately 61 per cent. of the money is swallowed up in administration expenses, and the amount left for the development of fisheries and rural industries is comparatively small. According to the Estimate, the amount to be spent on sea fisheries is only £5,050, and on inland fisheries £4,810, making a total of only £9,860. That is only approximately half the amount which the House voted last year for the sea and inland fisheries. I think no Deputy will have the audacity to say that since last year the position of the people in the Gaeltacht area or of the fishermen on the seaboard has improved. I believe that fishing, like agriculture, is a vital industry here. If agriculture as an industry [33] were to collapse, it would be the duty of the State to step in, and what is true of agriculture should also be true of the fishing industry. So far as the fishing industry is concerned, it cannot stand still; it must either advance or decline. Statistics which I shall put before the House will prove that the move, as far as the fishing industry is concerned, has been a retrograde one. There is an old saying, which I believe the Minister for Agriculture believes in, that humanity should be led back to the land. I believe that if humanity should be led back to the land we should not at the same time forget the potential wealth hidden in the sea, which, if the fishing industry was organised in a proper way, would help to improve the position of the fishermen and the people in the Gaeltacht. The fishing industry is not only an industrial problem; it is also a human problem. There are thousands of people depending upon it; some of them partly and some of them exclusively.

When we come to review the position of the fishing industry we find that it has declined to a very considerable extent. Upon looking up statistics I find that a century ago there were 65,000 fishermen engaged in the industry. According to the Gaeltacht Report, issued a few years ago, there were only 1,000 full-time and some 9,000 part-time fishermen engaged in the industry. Of that comparatively small number the majority are in a state of poverty. Many of them have to go to Scotland and to the Shetland Islands to supplement their very meagre earnings. If we compare the imports of fish into this country with the exports from the country for the past two years we will find that, instead of the fishing industry and the economic position of the fishermen improving, the reverse is the fact. So far as imports of fish into the country are concerned, we find that in 1928 there was imported into the country fish to the value of £316,157. Let us take the next year, 1929; the value of fish imported into this country in 1929 amounted to £354,452, making an increase in the fish imported [34] in 1929 as compared with 1928 of £38,295 I wonder does it occur to the minds of Deputies who study the fishing problem why any fish should be imported into this country at all if our fishing industry were properly organised and if the Minister for Finance realised the importance and potentiality of the fishing industry? There is an old saying about bringing coals to Newcastle; the same thing should apply here. Why bring fish to the Saorstát? There is plenty of fish in our own waters if the industry were properly developed, if the fishermen were properly organised, and if the Executive Council gave the attention they should give in order to develop this vital industry to this country.

So much for the import of fish. Let us turn now to the question of exports, and again we will see we are not improving. According to the statistics issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce in 1928 the total amount of fish exported from the Saorstát amounted to £695,951; for the year 1929 the exports of fish had fallen to £493,550. So that for the year 1929 as compared with 1928 there was a decline in our exports of £202,401. When this fact is taken conjointly into consideration with the figures of imports we find that 75 per cent. of the fish landed on the coast of the Saorstát was handled by non-Saorstát fishermen. No doubt there are quite a number of causes that affect this question of the decline in the fishing industry. One of the questions that affects it very seriously is that of poaching by foreign trawlers, which I hope to deal with later on. But I would point out, as far as the constituency which I represent is concerned—and I think the Minister will agree it is one of the greatest fishing centres in the Saorstát—that decline can be attributed also to other causes.

As I pointed out, 75 per cent. of the fish landed on our shores is handled by non-Saorstát fishermen. At the same time attempts have been made by those interested in the fishing industry in Scotland to endeavour to curtail the fishing season [35] along the Co. Donegal coast. I shall read to the House a brief extract with regard to this matter which was taken from one of the Donegal newspapers. It deals with the endeavours that are being made in Aberdeen and other parts of Scotland in order to curtail the length of the fishing season, and it states:—

“The Donegal season of the present year has been of short duration, the shortest on record. And sorry to have to admit, it would have been much shorter if the Aberdeen magnates had so desired. They could if they wished have decreed a close season on this coast. There were practically no native boats with which to prosecute the fishing. This action of the Scottish curers as regards the curtailment of the fishing season on this coast has naturally created bitter resentment. If a similar course had been adopted in relation to the other fishing countries one could see the logic of their procedure. But no such course was adopted. There was no shortening of the season anywhere on the Scottish coast. The fishing began almost simultaneously with operations on the Irish coast, and Scotch herrings were on the foreign market almost as quickly as were those from our shores. The result was that prices which, in the beginning, were satisfactory, considerably lowered. It was even reported that Donegal herrings were neglected and passed over. There is reason to believe that there is some agency at work to destroy the Donegal herring industry. The quality of this season's fish was such as could hardly have been rivalled, yet reports were broadcasted to German agents that the herrings were green and immature.”

I draw attention to that extract for the purpose of pointing out that our fisheries are largely in the hands of non-Saorstát people, a condition of affairs which, if our fisheries are to improve, in the manner we would like to see them, must be remedied.

[36] The Minister on Thursday last in introducing this Estimate mentioned the question of the re-valuation of the boats. That is a question which affects the fishermen to a very considerable degree. As the Minister is aware, loans were obtained a number of years ago by the fishermen when the cost of the boats were at the peak price, with the result that as the value of the boats fell the fishermen found themselves in an unenviable position and found that in many cases there was overvaluation of their boats. It was promised that after the Sea Fisheries Conference legislation would be introduced in order to deal with the re-valuation of the boats, but again up to the present, these promises have been unfulfilled.

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Lynch): May I ask the Deputy if he was listening to my speech on Thursday afternoon on that very point? I said that within a month of my speech on the Estimates last year a Committee was set up, as I stated to deal with re-valuation.

Mr. Cassidy: I quite realise that the Minister said that.

Mr. Lynch: And it has been done.

Mr. Cassidy: Nevertheless the Minister made the promise that legislation would be introduced in order to give effect to the question of the re-valuation of the boats, and my complaint is that up to the present that legislation has not been introduced. Deputy Jasper Wolfe dealt with the question of loans to fishermen and he pointed out that, if, as outlined by the Minister, we were to set up a Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association the best way to launch that Association would be to wipe out all loans outstanding and to start afresh. Let us wipe the slate clean in order to give the fishermen some hope, and in order that the Co-operative Association may succeed in this important matter and in the way the Minister would like to see them succeed. I might point out that quite a short time ago legislation was introduced into the Manx [37] Parliament and it was found possible for the Manx fishermen to obtain loans free of any interest. I hope, as far as this new Association is concerned, that when they give loans they will endeavour to give them at as low a rate of interest as is possible, even though they are not prepared to come up to scratch in the same way as the Manx Government has done. I hope they will go as far to develop the Saorstát fisheries as the Manx Government have done for their fisheries by granting loans free of interest.

In regard to the question of loans, I know as far as Donegal is concerned we have very many complaints. In one particular case that I want to mention an applicant made an application for a loan of £5 for the purchase of nets. He got the necessary forms from the Department and got these forms filled in by two sureties. He got the forms endorsed by the Fisheries Inspector. He thought that everything was in order so as to enable him to claim that loan for the purpose of buying the nets. That application form, duly signed and properly filled up, was sent on to the Department of Fisheries. Month after month elapsed and the money was not forthcoming. He wrote to the Department and after six months a reply was received by him from the Department stating that one of the sureties was too old and could not be accepted as a surety. Surely it should not take the Minister's Department six months to come to that decision? That is only one specimen of the way in which applicants for loans are treated by the Department of Fisheries.

Mr. Lynch: Did the Deputy raise that matter in the House within a month or six weeks or two months, or did he raise it within six months? I would like to know particulars of a case like that.

Mr. Cassidy: I have given the Minister particulars.

Mr. Lynch: The Deputy has not given me particulars of this case. I never heard of it until now. He says [38] that six months elapsed between the sending on of the form duly signed and the time when he got a letter informing him that one of the sureties was unacceptable. There is a rule in the Department that a person is not accepted as a surety if he is 60 or 70 years of age. I would like to get from the Deputy particulars of the case in which it took the Department six months to come to that decision.

Mr. Cassidy: I have the details in the case, but for obvious reasons I do not want to give the Minister the name across the House.

Mr. Lynch: I do not want it given in the House. The Deputy can give me the name privately.

Mr. Cassidy: I will not give the Minister the name. The possibility is that if I did, that poor fisherman would be afterwards penalised when he made application for another loan.

Mr. Lynch: That is nonsense.

Mr. Cassidy: I think the Minister was endeavouring to talk nonsense when he introduced this Estimate. A very important question with which we are faced as far as fisheries are concerned is the matter of protection for our fisheries. The Minister taunts me with talking nonsense. But I charge the Minister here and now that on many occasions he made promises that the Executive Council or his Department were going to purchase additional protection vessels. I say that the Minister on those occasions did talk nonsense, because those promises have been unfulfilled. The result is that we find foreign trawlers coming over and taking the fish which would be caught by our own fishermen if proper attention had been given to this question of protection. We read in this morning's “Independent” that the French Government have decided that three gunboats are to come along to look after the encroachments by the French fishing boats on the territorial waters of the Saorstát. Surely it is a sorry state of affairs if it is necessary for our Fisheries Department to get [39] the French Government to protect our own fisheries. Surely if we had been paying enough attention to this very important question we would have protection vessels ourselves.

Again, according to the report in the “Independent,” I observe that the commander of the French gunboats in an interview with a representative of the “Independent” stated that “While French fishermen experience little or no trouble when fishing off the English coast, they are in considerable difficulty as regards the limit off the Irish seaboard.” I think it is as well that we in this House should not allow a statement of that kind to go unchallenged. Surely it is not contended by the commander of this gunboat that the British or any other country will allow trawlers or smacks to come into their waters and take lobster-pots off the fishermen, and in some cases to threaten them with violence and even with guns? As the commander of this gunboat has pointed out, there are some difficulties with regard to the determination of what are territorial waters and what are not territorial waters. The Minister himself could not determine them. The Minister does not know what they are. I challenged him across the floor of the House a few days ago to say what these territorial waters were, and he said they were getting legal opinion in regard to it. Apparently they are getting legal opinion on this matter for a very long time. A statement was made in the discussion on the matter of the Imperial Conference in this House a few days ago that no other country or no other Government had authority to interfere with any rights of the Saorstát. What about the action of the Six-County Government when they attempt to interfere with our territorial rights as far as Lough Foyle is concerned? Is not that looked upon as our territorial water?

I received a letter this morning from a resident of the Arranmore Islands in Donegal, and I will read a portion of it for the Minister if he [40] desires it. Here is an extract from this letter:—“About the beginning of February some local fishermen started to fish haddock in Arranmore Bay, and their efforts were pretty successful up to a fortnight ago, when under the very eyes of the fishermen there came up a foreign trawler into the bay and trawled up the fishing grounds, with the result that the local fishermen had to give up fishing, as whatever fish was left behind left the grounds. You can understand the position.” He then points out that, as in other years, he expects within a month's time we will have French boats coming here and clearing up the bay of all lobsters while we have a patrol boat costing £8,000 per annum. He makes the suggestion: “I think if the Department give a motor-boat and a couple of Lewis guns to the fishermen in this area they will themselves protect the coast at a much lower cost than what is expended at the present time by the Department.”

Mr. Lynch: Does the Deputy seriously put that forward?

Mr. Cassidy: I am putting forward the suggestion that was made to me. What I do put forward is that the Department should have two speedy motor boats in Donegal, one in Lough Swilly and the other in Donegal Bay in order to protect the fishermen from the ravages of those foreign marauders that come in there and get away unmolested with our fish.

There is a matter that I think has not yet been raised in this House. One of the directors of the Co-operative Fisheries Association is Mr. Laurence O'Toole, of Arklow. He is a gentleman who, I understand, knows a considerable amount about the fishing industry. Speaking in Dublin on 4th February, 1929, he stated: “I should correct in passing the prevailing impression that all the money devoted to the fishing industry by Government Departments was provided from Government funds. Such is not the case. A fund created in London in 1822 [41] for the benefit of Irish fisheries was taken over by the Free State Government under the Treaty. It would be interesting to know what balance remains to the credit of this fund at the present time.”

I would like the Minister to reply to that, because allegations were made here some time ago that in pre-1914 days the British Government, through what was known as the Development Fund, voted the sum of £18,000 for the improvement of Buncrana harbour and pier. That was denied by the Minister's Department, but afterwards the Department, in conjunction with the Department of Industry and Commerce, was forced to face the situation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking in the Seanad in regard to the Buncrana Harbour and Pier Bill, said that the money had been voted for the purposes of development in pre-war days by the British Government. Is this a parallel case? Was any money taken over after the Treaty was signed, and, if so, what has become of it? There was a question brought up today affecting fish workers. It dealt with reciprocity as far as unemployment insurance is concerned.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not a matter for the Department of Fisheries.

Mr. Cassidy: I was anxious to refer to it briefly. Large numbers of fish-workers leave our coast for England and Scotland. While they are working there certain amounts are stopped from their wages for insurance, but when they come back here they cannot get any benefit.

Mr. Lynch: In their ordinary employment on fishery work they are not in what is called an insurable occupation.

Mr. Cassidy: I refer to gutters— people who do the gutting work in the herring industry. That is an insurable occupation.

Mr. Lynch: Oh, yes.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry to see that no provision is made in this [42] year's Estimates for any expenditure on the improvement of piers, harbours and landing slips. This affects Donegal to a very large extent. Last week or the week before a question was put to the Minister to find out whether he was aware that estimates and plans for adequate pier accommodation at Killybegs had been lodged with the Department in 1927, and whether, as the landing facilities for fishing craft operating from this important port are altogether inadequate, he would state when he proposes to carry out the required improvement. The Minister's reply was very amazing. He stated that the port at Killybegs was suitable enough for the fishing smacks, but there was a necessity for a number of improvements for which the Harbour Commissioners were responsible. In March last plans were prepared for the enlargement of the pier, but he was under the impression that the fishing industry there at the present time was not of sufficient importance to warrant going ahead with the work. Is the Minister aware that, as far as Killybegs is concerned, it is one of the finest natural ports in Ireland, and it is the recognised landing-place for Donegal Bay?

As regards fishing, for a number of years past the industry there has been comparatively successful. As Mr. Laurence O'Toole, of Arklow, has pointed out, whereas Howth and Arklow used to be comparatively successful, the success hitherto attained by both Howth and Arklow is now being attained by Killybegs. The Minister states that the fishing there is not of sufficient importance to warrant a grant being given. During the fishing season at Killybegs a number of German and Russian firms are interested, as well as a large number of trawlers which come from England and Scotland. The Harbour Commissioners have recently spent upwards of £100 dredging the harbour. They have not funds at their disposal to develop the harbour in the manner in which it should be developed. Let us contrast the treatment meted out [43] to the people of Killybegs and the people of Howth. We find that Donegal apparently is of no account. Everything seems to be done for Dublin, Cork and other such places. This year the Board of Works are devoting £2,274 for maintenance and improvement work at Howth Harbour. Last year they voted over £2,000. I venture to say that the amount credited on the Appropriation Accounts in connection with tolls and dues in Howth is comparatively small. The fishing there during the past couple of years was a comparative failure. At periods there were only a few row-boats there, with an occasional motor boat. In the case of Dun Laoghaire over £20,000 has been voted this year, while £730 has been voted for Dunmore East. Donegal has been treated very badly, and I hope that this point will be stressed by Donegal Deputies on the Government Benches.

Mr. Lynch: Does the Deputy realise that Howth, Dun Laoghaire and Dunmore East are State harbours built by the State and maintained by the State? The whole question of maintenance is on the State. The other harbours of the country are maintained by some local authority or a Harbour Board. These are essentially State harbours, and it is a duty on the State to maintain them.

An Ceann Comhairle: The money is on the Vote for the Office of Public Works.

Mr. Cassidy: I quite recognise all that. If the duty is on the State to maintain a place like Howth, where the fishing for a number of years has been a comparative failure, there should be a greater duty on the State to improve what is a flourishing industry in Killybegs. Instead of weakening my case the Minister has actually strengthened it.

Mr. Lynch: It was never because it was a good fishing centre that the harbour was maintained.

[44] Mr. Cassidy: During 1928 and 1929 the pier at Killybegs was totally inadequate to provide the berthing accommodation required for trawlers and drifters that came from England, Scotland and other places. Take the case of Bundoran. Application was made some time ago to get a grant to develop Bundoran pier. Bundoran is one of the finest seaside resorts in Ireland. It is developing into a fine tourist centre. The President, speaking with regard to the £3,000 voted for motor races in the Phoenix Park, said he believed the money was well spent, because it would help to develop the tourist traffic. If some money were spent developing Bundoran it would also assist the tourist traffic very materially. I suggest that a supplementary estimate should be brought in. It would be better spent money than what has been devoted to the Phoenix Park motor races. Take Portrush and Bangor and observe the way that these harbours have been developed. There is direct shipping there at times. A development of Bundoran pier would facilitate shipping as well as the fishing industry. A direct line could be operated with places on the English and Scotch coasts, and this would mean a big increase in tourists at Bundoran.

In regard to the question of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association, there is one matter to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. Although County Donegal is recognised as one of the most important fishing centres in the Saorstát, not one representative from Donegal has been put on the board of directors. It is again a case of Donegal being nowhere. I would like to know if, after this Association is established, all the responsibility will be taken out of the hands of the Department as far as loans are concerned.

Will all responsibility be taken out of the hands of Deputies in regard to raising questions in this House as to who are, or who are not, to get loans? Is it to be like the Electricity Supply [45] Board or the Agricultural Credit Corporation and is it to have full autonomy as an Association while this House will have practically no jurisdiction over it? Unlike speakers who have spoken in this debate on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches, I am not going to eulogise the Association until I see how it works. I would like to know whether the Minister at this juncture is prepared to enlighten us as to what rate of interest is going to be charged for loans from this Association. Personally I hope that the Association will succeed and will help in reviving the fishing industry. In addition to this being the vote for fisheries it is also the Vote for Gaeltacht services. The House will be aware that, so far as the Gaeltacht Commission is concerned, it reported to the Executive Council on 14th July, 1926, and the Executive Council in February, 1928, had printed and circulated to Deputies a White Paper setting out their intentions in regard to that report. Some of the recommendations made in that White Paper have not been carried out.

One recommendation was to the effect that special grants should be given for the encouragement of the reclamation of land. It was stated that the Government were prepared to give effect to the recommendation and to have the matter explored with a view to having a suitable scheme drafted. That was over two years ago, but we have not yet got a suitable scheme for the reclamation of land, so far as the Gaeltacht is concerned. Another recommendation was that a comprehensive afforestation scheme for the Gaeltacht should be undertaken. I understand that according to the recommendation in the White Paper the Government were prepared to give facilities with a view to getting afforestation started on a proper footing in the Gaeltacht. I repeatedly asked the Minister for Agriculture in this House to state the number of counties in which money has been spent for afforestation purposes. Large sums, I understand, have been [46] voted year after year for that purpose, but up to the present not one half-penny has been spent out of that money in the Gaeltacht in Donegal. Is that carrying out the recommendations of the Gaeltacht Commission? I hope that the Department will consider this matter and give Donegal what it deserves in this regard or else let the Government repudiate the recommendations in the White Paper.

Another recommendation was to the effect that expenditure be incurred for the provision of small slips and break-waters and in repairing some existing ones. In the White Paper the Government said:— “Provision has been made each year in the Department of Fisheries Vote for grants towards the cost of construction and repair of small harbours and landing places, but in no year up to the present has the amount so voted been availed of fully.” I do not think that that is altogether right. I have repeatedly asked for grants to be given towards the provision of landing slips off the islands of Donegal, but such requests were always refused. Notwithstanding all that, we are told that the money voted has not been availed of. The reason for that is that the Minister's Department will not spend the money voted for that purpose. A further recommendation was to the effect that loans should be made available for the purpose of setting up carding and finishing mills, but that has not been done so far as Donegal is concerned. A debate took place recently in regard to the refusal of the Minister to allocate a sum of £600 or £700 to set up carding and breaking machines and dyeing vats in Ardara. It is mentioned in the report that so far as this industry is concerned in Donegal in pre-war times there were about 2,000 workers employed. There are in Ardara and South Donegal 1,500 spinning wheels worth £2 each and 600 looms at £15 each approximately, making a total of £12,000. Moreover, in Ardara you have electrical plant capable of supplying electri city for industrial purposes at one [47] penny a unit, which is cheaper than the Shannon Scheme rate.

Some time ago an instructor was appointed who went to Donegal, and I understand that the intention of the Executive Council in appointing him was to try and develop the handspun industry in the Ardara and other areas in Donegal. In introducing this estimate the Minister said: “The preliminary work was conducted at Ardara, which was at one time the centre of the industry. We trained between 50 and 60 weavers there. I must say that the results in Ardara were not at all satisfactory. The number of weavers capable of turning out work of the required standard has been very small and there has not been any indication or general disposition to take it up as a trade.” In order to prove the inaccuracy of that statement made by the Minister last week. I would direct the attention of Deputies to a statement made by the Minister on 23rd October last, in which he said: “I should like to inform the Deputy that the instructor of the Department, after searching the highways and byeways, could only find six spinners in the neighbourhood of Ardara.” Was the Minister sincere in making that statement? Was he aware that it was denied strenuously? Was he aware that a few days after that statement we received a telegram from Ardara stating that there were fifty workers employed by private employers and that large numbers were unemployed?

At any rate, to prove the inaccuracy of the Minister's statement, the instructor, who, the Minister alleged, informed him that there were only six spinners in that area, called a meeting about a week after I raised the matter in this House, and gave out wool to be spun to about 130 spinners in the Ardara area. The Minister therefore knows that his statement to me was absolutely incorrect, and I challenge the Minister, if he still adheres to that statement, to come with me up to Ardara on next Sunday or Sunday [48] week, and I will guarantee to get together for him approximately 200 spinners and weavers in the market at Ardara. Apparently it is not the intention of the Minister to endeavour to develop the hand-spun industry. There are certain sinister influences at work, I believe, to ensure that the mill spun yarn industry will be developed at the expense of the hand-spun industry. When the Minister is dealing with this question in reply I want him to be straight about it, to refer to the industry as the hand-spun industry, and not try to camouflage the name by referring to it as the home-spun industry. I am referring to yarn spun and woven in the cottages. When the Minister talks of handwoven, what does he mean? He purchased 4,200 lbs. of wool spun at mills which are situated outside the Gaeltacht some time ago, instead of getting it spun in the homes of the people in the Gaeltacht, where it would give much-needed employment. It is recognised that the hand-spun industry has been retarded in the Ardara area owing to the want of proper machinery, owing to the want of carders, breakers and dyeing vats: These would cost approximately £700.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that he is helping to re-establish the industry in Kilcar, Glencolumbkille, Glenties, Gortahork, Dunlewey and other places. He should be able to do that without retarding progress in the Ardara area. If the Minister would agree to allocate £600 or £700 in order to instal the necessary machinery it would provide work in that area for about 200 or 250 weavers and spinners. It can hardly be said the Department cannot afford the £600 or £700, when we find in the estimate a sum of £1,000 for the Dublin Zoological Gardens, to feed the animals there, and £1,000 for the Abbey Theatre. Last year we were asked to vote a similar sum for the Thorndale Veterinary Laboratory, for the purpose of erecting a guinea pig house. I put it to the Minister that the sum I ask for the development of those industries is [49] very small and reasonable in comparison with the sums I have just named. Surely the Minister will see his way to make an expenditure of this amount in order to revive these industries?

Generally speaking, I do not think that a sufficient effort is being made in the Department to carry out the recommendations of the Gaeltacht Commission. Some time ago [ accompanied a deputation to the Minister, and a Mr. Jerry Barnes was then prepared to invest a sum of £2,000 if the Department would advance a similar sum at a low rate of interest to start a readymade clothing factory at Crolly Bridge, in Donegal. I suppose the Minister will tell me that no decision has been come to yet, but Mr. Barnes, after the lapse of a very long time, has not received any definite information from the Minister. The Minister may say that the Department do not regard that as a feasible scheme, but I, Mr. Barnes, and others, hold that it is feasible. However, Mr. Barnes has not been notified whether any decision has been arrived at.

I can assure the Minister that I do not raise any of these points for the purpose of indulging in any carping criticism. I raise them in the hope that the Minister will pay some attention, more attention than he has in the past, to the sign-posts I have indicated, and that the necessary assistance will be forthcoming for the industries which I have mentioned. It is my intention to vote for the amendment that the Estimate be referred back, so that the Minister will refer it back to the Minister for Finance, in the hope that the Minister for Finance will recognise that a much bigger sum is required for services in the Gaeltacht than we are asked to vote on this occasion.

Mícheál Og Mac Pháidín: Tá baramhail agam féin go bhfuil oiread colais ag cuid de na Teachtaí a labharas annseo ar shaol san Ghaeltacht as tá agam-sa ar shaol na ndaoineadh san Ucraine no san Rúis. Agus ní mór an méid colais é sin. B'fhéidir go bhfeiceann cuid aca beanna agus sléibhte Thír Chonaill [50] uair nó dhó san bhliain; ach níl aca dúinne annseo ach sean-scéal reatha, mar “dubhairt bean liom gur dhubhairt bean léi.” Ach tá Teachtaí annseo a thuigeas an Ghaeltacht i gceart agus tá mé cinnte go raibh lúthgháir orra chluinstin ón Aire caidé bhí faoi 'dhéanamh don Ghaeltacht. Tá súil agam go gcuirfidh an tAire agus na Rúnaidhthe ar a chúl iomlán a nirt san obair sco agus go gcuirfidh siad leis go dlúth, go diongbhálta agus go dúthrachtach. Béimíd uilig ag dréim le rian a saothair d'fheiceál gan mhoill.

Is maith an scéal go bhfuil Bórd úr ag dul i gcionn gnaithe na híascaireachta. Thug an scéal sin uchtach agus misneach mór do iascairí na Gaeltachta agus tá súil agam nach mbeidh siad meallta ann. Acht, má tá maitheas ar bith le teacht as, guidhim ar Aire an Airgid gan a bheith truaillighe no ceachardha leo san obair. Mar' rabh seisean fial fiúntach san chás, b'fhearr dúinn go mór gan aon Bhórd a chur ar bun.

Anois, tá ceist agam don Aire— An dtig leis stad a chur leis an scrios agus an léan atá ar lorg na dtrálairí i mBáighe Dhún na nGall? Má tá ceann ann, tá dhá fhichid ceann as Aberdeen agus Fleetwood ag síorscríobadh na fairrge sin. Mar bhfuil, badh chóir go mbéadh, comhacht ag an Rialtas Báighe Dhún na nGall a dhruid ó Cheann Aicill go Ceann Ghluine agus é bheith toirmeasctha tráiléireacht a dhéanamh taoibh istigh de sin. Rinneadh seo i gcás Bháighe Mhuirigh i nAlbain agus níl fáth nach ndéanfaí mar a' gcéadna i mBáighe Dhún na nGall. Annsin, bhéadh cead scéidhthe agus pósadh ag an iase nach bhfuil anois agus dhéanfadh seo maith as miosúr do Dhún na nGall agus don larthar chois fairrge. Tá ceist amháin eile agus badh chóir don Aire í scrúdú go cúramach. Caidé an dóigh a dtig leis an Rialtas iomlán seilbhe d'fháil ar iascaireacht bhradán i gcuantaí an tSaorstáit? Cuir i gcás an Eirne agus na several fisheries a thógas oiread bruighne agus achrainn sna cúirteanna o bhliain go bliain. Badh chóir go [51] mbéadh an iascaireacht seo uilig faoi stiúradh náisiúnta agus ag dul 'un tairbhe do iomlán na tíre.

Anois, fá na déantúisí, tá lúthgháir orm a rá go bhfuil dul 'un cinn maith déanta ó 'nuiridh agus tá dóchas láidir agam go dtiocfaidh maitheas mór as na scéimeanna atá eadar lámha ag an Aire.

Tá fhios againn nach dtig déantús úr a chur ar bun no sean-cheann aithbheodhú i gceann míosa no ráithe. Caithfimíd níos mó foighde a bheith againn. Tá Teachtaí annseo agus saoileann siad gur chóir don Aire déantús úr a chur ar bun mar bhéarfadh cleasaidhe coinín amach as hata. Ná tabharadh sé aon áird orra. Leanadh sé don chúrsa atá leagtha amach aige agus tuillfidh sé féin agus an Rialtas buidheachas agus beannacht Ghaedheal na Gaeltachta.

Mr. Mullins: The Fisheries Estimate this year is somewhat different from the Estimate for Fisheries put before us in past years, particularly in regard to the new departure which the Minister proposes to make in reference to the reorganisation of the fishing industry. One thing that strikes me in looking through the book of Estimates is that £47,270 is the amount which the Minister asks the Dáil to vote for his Department. We hear here from year to year, and at public meetings throughout the country, that the fishing industry, if it were reorganised, could be made the second most important industry of the State. It is taken for granted generally by every public speaker I have heard, that second to the agricultural industry, the fishing industry could be made the staple industry of this State. Yet for an industry which has within it such possibilities of development, if proper attention and if the proper initiative were shown by the Government to put it on a business footing and to save it from the absolute decay and death which at the moment appear to face it, we have the Minister coming before the Dáil asking for a paltry sum of £47,270, whilst, on the other hand, the Minister for External [52] Affairs, for a Department which does not in reality give any return in pounds, shillings and pence to the State, secures an Estimate of £59,822. The difference between the Estimate for Fisheries and the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs is £12,552. On the one hand, a Department which is merely a sort of show Department, a sort of display Department for a status which this State does not possess, will secure in the course of a few days £12,552 more than a Department which is in charge of an industry that everybody appears to recognise has the possibility of being made the greatest and the most productive industry in this State. I think the efforts of the Department of Fisheries will be nullified because of the fact that no serious effort has yet been made to tackle the fishing problem as it should be tackled.

Undoubtedly we welcome the introduction of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association as outlined by the Minister in his speech, but, like other Deputies, I am sceptical about it until I see it in actual operation. The unfortunate part, so far as I can understand from the Minister's speech, is that the Association will not be in a position to get into full working order before about the middle of June. That means that half of the present fishing season would be past before any boats, loans or gear could be availed of by the fishermen. Undoubtedly it is the first serious constructive effort that has been made since the establishment of the Free State in 1922 to deal with the fishing problem. In my opinion this effort may lead to good things if the proper grit, initiative and determination are put behind it and if the Department of Fisheries and the Minister who is in charge, not alone of Fisheries but of the Gaeltacht services, is given in that respect a free hand. We understand, and anyone who has any acquaintance with the problem understands, that it is a very difficult job, and a job that can be solved only by an absolute determination to get there whatever the cost. I think it was [53] last year, in the course of a discussion on this Estimate, that I asked the Minister whether he would candidly say in his reply if the Government, having considered the possibilities of the fishing industry, thought that the fishery problem was worthy of an attempt of solution. I think, in winding up, the Minister should give us a reply to that, because if this Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association is going to come to anything, it means that the Estimate that we have before us is not going to cover the actual extent of its operation. It means that the Minister may have to come before the House for a Supplementary Estimate, and it means that the House must have sufficient confidence in the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association and give the Minister sufficient support to ensure, if he desires further money, that he will get it without any further delay.

Another thing in connection with that problem is the omission from the Estimates this year of the usual grant for piers and harbour development. It is unfortunate that in this attempt to revive the fishing industry along our coasts no mention has been made and no apparent action taken with regard to the facilities of which the fishermen stand in dire need, particularly along the coast I am acquainted with, the south-west coast of Ireland. Last year the Minister stated that the grants which were voted by his Department year after year were not fully availed of. Applications came in and evidently his Inspectors thought that there was no real necessity for the utilisation of the moneys in the places from which the applications came. The fact remains and the Minister himself should be well aware of it that along the coast slips or piers must be constructed. They are vital things if the operations of this Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association are to come to any success. If he provides fishermen with boats, nets and gear and if at the same time they have no facilities for landing their catches his efforts will be nullified at [54] one end. I think he should endeavour to right that and to work it in with his Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association when that Board begins to function.

In connection with that there was a grant made by his Department for the dredging of Kinsale Harbour about 18 months ago. No action has since been taken and despite repeated attempts on all sides to secure a dredger in order to utilise that grant the efforts of the Harbour Board of Kinsale and of myself failed on every occasion. I do not know why, because from what I can understand from the Department of Public Works they have three dredgers. On every occasion on which we applied to them for the use of the dredger they failed.

I want to suggest to the Minister that if he gives a grant for the dredging or development of a harbour and leaves it to the local authorities to secure the dredger in order to utilise the money put at the disposal of the local council by his Department that some effort should be made by his Department to ensure closer co-operation between the Board of Works and the Department of Fisheries in the utilisation of the dredgers they have under their control. After all dredgers that must be secured from other public bodies or from cross-Channel firms for the dredging of harbours can be secured only at an exorbitant cost. Public bodies will not undertake the work, whereas if there was closer co-operation between the Fishery Department and the Department of Public Works where grants are given to public authorities by his Department some means should be taken to ensure that those grants would be utilised and availed of by the provision of a dredger. I would like to know what is the exact position at the moment with regard to the question of the dredging of Kinsale Harbour.

In the course of the introduction of the Estimate the Minister dealt with the question of fishery loans and stated that 700 up to the present had [55] been dealt with. I was very glad to know that he had that pleasing statement to make to the Dáil. I would ask him to go a step further. With Deputy Wolfe I would appeal to him to wipe completely off the State loans that were incurred by fishermen prior to 1922. Undoubtedly the fishing industry is in a parlous condition at the moment. Fishermen find it hard enough to make ends meet. I would wish the Minister to respond to the appeals made in this House last year, this year and in other years. He knows that there is no use in trying to get blood out of a turnip. Fishermen in many parts of the country who incurred those loans are, at the moment, down and out. They are not in a position to repay them, and it would be better for his Department to wipe the slate clean and to give those people a chance if they are to secure further assistance to start without this milestone being tied around their neck.

With regard to item G of the Estimate, concerning herring branding, I see a sum of £50 down for that. £50 strikes me as being a farcical sum to vote in connection with a matter of this nature. I do not think that the Minister touched on that in introducing the Estimate last week. I would like to know exactly what does that mean, and for what purpose that £50 will be spent, because, if I remember rightly, last year, in the course of the debate on the Fishery Estimate, the Minister discussed the possibilities of a Bill for the branding of mackerel for export. In the course of his statement he said:—

“I think I mentioned, in connection with the Gaeltacht Report, that in compliance with that Report, and with the recommendation of the Fishery Conference, I will be introducing a Bill for the compulsory branding of mackerel for export. That will possibly come on before the Recess.”

That was the 9th May, 1928. That Bill has not yet arrived. You see here £50 for herring branding. I [56] would like him to state, in the course of his reply, whether that herring branding business includes mackerel regulation as promised, or whether the Mackerel Bill will materialise before next Recess, and for what purpose that £50 will be spent. I cannot see what £50 is to do for herring branding, and I am sure the House will be glad to know in what respect it will be spent.

There was some talk in the course of this debate with regard to territorial limits. On the last occasion on which this Vote was before the House I expressed doubt as to whether there was any really recognised international three-mile limit. The Minister is quite aware that in other countries where an industry was threatened by foreign competition or otherwise an attempt was made to secure that the recognised English three-mile limit should be abolished. The Minister is aware that countries such as Norway, Russia and the United States have not and do not recognise the three-mile limit for purposes such as this. If they do not do it when their industry is threatened there is no reason in the world why this State would not attempt something on similar lines. At the present moment, so far as we can understand, there is sitting at the Hague a Conference to deal with territorial waters. We have a delegation from our Department of Foreign Affairs assisting at that Conference. I think if the Minister would send along a memorandum to the Department of External Affairs asking that the delegation at that Conference bring this question of territorial waters up and get a definite decision as regards the waters of the Irish coast, the Department of External Affairs would be doing something to justify its existence, and the Minister would be doing a very good day's work for the fishing industry and for our fishermen.

Deputy Cassidy, I think, quoted something from the “Independent” with regard to the French commander of a gunboat sent by the French Government to Irish waters. [57] There is one very important point in it that I would recommend to the Minister's attention. Commander Duval stated that his Government would be willing to enter into any agreement regarding the fixing of definite prohibition limits as regards the Irish Free State coast. The French, Dutch and British are the chief offenders in connection with our territorial waters, and if at that Conference at the Hague our delegation from Foreign Affairs reminded these people that we have as much right to the use of the sea within certain strictly defined limits as they have to the use of the seas around their coasts within certain strictly defined limits an agreement might be come to. I think the Minister should recommend that to the Department of External Affairs, particularly when the French appear to be, in connection with the lobster fishing, the chief offenders.

Last year I appealed for a close season on the south coast. The Minister evidently did not consider it worth while to take any further action on it. If he could bring under the notice also of that Foreign Affairs delegation at the Hague the question of an internationally agreed close season on the Irish coast, I think he would be doing a good day's work for the fishing industry, and the Department of External Affairs would have yet another reason to justify its existence. Last year and the year before Stettin and Danzic buvers stated definitely that they would not purchase any further herring caught off the Irish coast before a certain date. The herrings were left in the hands of the buyers and were unsaleable. An attempt was made from certain seaports in the south coast to secure a close season but, unfortunately, the close season arranged by the Government of the Free State and its Department of Fisheries would be of no value if it could only be enforced against Irish fishermen. International agreement is obviously necessary if these Scotch, Dutch and French poachers are to be kept off our coast, and it would be well if some action were taken in that [58] respect and some attempt made by negotiation to secure it. After all, we are told that negotiation can secure anything in this century, and that the gun can secure nothing. We have not got the guns to do it, and since we are sending delegations to all parts of the world, I would suggest to the Minister that he would give some attention to that matter in the course of his reply.

The question of fines, touched on by Deputy Wolfe, is one also that the Minister has not given the consideration it deserves. These people come within our territorial waters. They poach our fish, and by reason of better equipped and faster ships and by more determination obviously than our own fishermen have they are able to get away with their catches, and no effective action appears to be taken to put terror, so to speak, into their hearts and prevent them breaking our fishery laws. Deputy Wolfe made an eloquent plea in favour of action being taken. I want to support the case he made. I believe that unless that is done the actions and activities of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association will be rendered useless.

Much talk has been made about protection of fisheries. That is another point upon which the Sea Fisheries Association is going to come to grief unless before it is formally launched and its loans become effective action is taken in regard to outstanding loans. Last year a sum of £8,000 was voted for fishery protection services. The year before a similar sum was voted. The year before that a similar amount was also voted. We find in connection with fishery protection that the Minister, introducing the Estimate on the 9th May, 1928, stated:

At the same time, it is quite possible, owing to the vessel now becoming old—that is the “Muirchú”—that heavier overhaul charges may be expected. I had hoped to be in a position to come before the House—this is a matter I mentioned in my speech on the Estimates for 1926-27—with [59] a request for a Vote for a second fishery cruiser.

The Minister himself admitted in 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929 that further protection was needed. This year no application is made for any further protection in that respect. The House, I am sure, will be glad to know why. In that connection I am very glad to notice that the most eloquent defender of the Government of the Irish Free State that we have in the South of Ireland has made a call for protection. In the course of a leading article in the “Evening Echo” on March 22nd he called for the same thing that Deputies have been calling for in this House for the last five or six years. I make no apology for quoting the article extensively, because, coming from such an authority on international and constitutional law, and such a strong supporter of the Government as Mr. Crosbie is, I think it might have more weight than many of the speeches that we may have to make in this House. Evidently the power of the Press is wonderful and should be obeyed. The article is headed:

Call for Protection.

It reads:—

The debate in the Dáil on the Vote of £28,270 for the Department of Fisheries revealed nothing with which the public are not already acquainted. All that was said may be legitimately placed in the category of ancient history. At all events, it seems so to many of us, and when the day and necessity for its reiteration cease, we shall be very glad. Time and again the plight of the fisher-folk has been spoken of in the Press and on the platform, but it is regrettable to think that all the advocacy has been, indeed, far from fruitful. However, as the Dáil has once again tackled the topic, let us hope that something practical and advantageous will follow. In the course of yesterday's discussion the inadequacy of the protection of our fisheries against the piracies of foreign trawlers was [60] emphasised, and it was pointed out that the existing patrol system was unable to deal with them. How true this is can be gauged from the fact that only one boat is employed on the work. As well might it be suggested that one policeman is sufficient guarantee for the protection of life and property of an entire city as to say that this one-boat arrangement is all that the safeguarding of our fisheries requires. Year after year, indeed month after month, we have evidence furnished of how what should be the harvest of our poor fishermen is stolen by foreign trawlers. And, of course, the operations of these raiders are encouraged and facilitated by the lamentable circumstance that for the entire coast marking the Free State there is only one patrol boat available. The position is absurd, and would, indeed, be laughable if it did not represent such a grave measure of injustice to our fishermen, who, under the most favourable conditions, would, we should think, find it hard enough to make ends meet—however humble that same may be.

We observe that in the course of the debate the employment of motor patrol boats was urged, and this at least would represent one step in the right direction. It is abundantly evident that one boat cannot do the work with any degree of satisfaction, and, consequently, it is perfectly plain that further and more complete protective action is needed. A patrol boat cannot be in a dozen different places at the same time, and nobody knows this better, and avails of it more fully, than the foreign raider. Like the burglar, he watches his opportunity and turns it to good account at the expense of our poor fishermen. This is surely a situation that cannot be tolerated much longer. Considerable damage and much injustice have been already done, and there is nothing more certain than their continuing until such time as our Government employ methods that [61] will render the despicable game stale, flat and unprofitable. To know that foreigners reap the harvest that rightly belongs to our fellow-countrymen is bitter; but that it should be made so by our own lack of action in the direction that the fact dictates intensifies the feeling. We are quite prepared to believe that our Government is anxious to cope adequately with the situation, but let us suggest that we have had too many delays and we want no more of them.

The “Cork Examiner” warns the Government that there have been too many delays and that they will not stand any more. How many people in the South of Ireland who support the Government are represented by the “Cork Examiner”? I hope the Minister will take notice of that fact. Last year I advocated small motor patrol boats such as are employed by the United States Government in chasing rum runners should be employed here for the protection of our sea fisheries. If a fleet of half a dozen such boats, which are capable of weathering pretty heavy seas and going out a distance of from ten to fifteen miles off the coast, were utilised, I am sure that, even though the initial cost might be pretty heavy, they would repay in the end any expenditure involved. Unless that is done, or unless the alternative method also advocated here, namely, the utilisation of seaplanes is adopted, I do not see any possibility of even four boats like the “Muirchu,” with the very small speed which she possesses, and lacking effective gunnery appliances, doing any good in driving off poachers.

If the Minister adopts our suggestion as to consulting with the Department of External Affairs, he might also consult the Department of Defence and see whether it would not be more advantageous to secure one or two seaplanes for experimental purposes instead of the Bristol fighters which they have at present in the Air Force. Who they are going to fight nobody knows. That [62] would be better than having an Air Force which, like the Department of External Affairs, is being used for show purposes. I suggest that he should take these suggestions into consideration. They are meant seriously and are given in all good faith, in the hope that some effort may be made, either along these lines, or other lines which may be found to be more suitable, in order to save what is left of the fishing industry off our coast. I do not see any use in the revival of the industry along the lines of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association if every effort of the Minister is to be nullified by foreign trawlers and poachers. Both ends of the problem must be tackled together; the Department must march forward not along one narrow road, but along every road on which there is a tentacle of that problem. If the Minister tackles them all simultaneously, it should be possible, even though progress is slow at the beginning, within a short time to put the industry on its feet, if there is determination behind it. Pending the active operation of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association, there is one thing to which the Minister ought to give serious consideration. The fishing season is at hand and there are many fishermen anxious to secure loans for boats or gear or nets. No provision appears to be made for that, except on the production of two solvent securities. I think discretionary power should be given to grant a loan where fishermen are prepared to put up an equivalent in the matter of hard material security to the amount of cash that they require. For instance, some time back there was a case in Kinsale where a fisherman showed intelligence and determination to better himself and to endeavour to bring back to Kinsale some of the lost glory it once had. He built a boat himself and went to tremendous trouble to make it seaworthy. He sunk the last cent. of his capital and produced an excellent boat in every respect, which was valued for at least £150. The boat was fitted out in every respect except the [63] engine, and he applied to the Department of Fisheries for a loan to secure an engine.

At that time he was in a position to secure a practically new engine for £100. He applied for a loan of £100 to the Department, but he did not want to ask people to go security for him, because he believed that, as he had sufficient material value for the amount he was asking for, the Department should show appreciation of his initiative by granting a loan pending the formation of the Association. He wrote to the Department on several occasions, but was informed that under existing regulations two solvent and acceptable securities who were willing to undertake the responsibility for the repayment of the loan were essential. I think that in cases of that kind—and there may be other cases of the same type —there should be powers to enable the Minister, acting on his discretion, and on the advice of his fishery officers, to issue a loan where a sincere attempt is being made by the fishermen concerned to earn an honest livelihood and to assist the Department in re-establishing the industry in places where it is practically dead. I would ask the Minister to give some information on that point and in that particular case, because it appears to be a scandal that no loan should be available for that man before next June, unless he secures two solvent securities, when he himself has security to the value of at least £150.

I do not intend to delay the House except to welcome the establishment of the Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association. It appears to me to be an honest attempt, even though it is on a small scale, and I am certain that every Deputy will give all the assistance in his power to the Department in making it a success. When the Association is established and its rules laid upon the Table of the House, if we could allow a period of four or six months to see how it will work, then I think it would be time enough to state [64] whether it is or is not a failure. Meantime, I think all good wishes should go out to it, and every assistance that can be rendered to it ought to be rendered by Deputies on every side of the House.

Mr. Carey: Fishing round the coast of Cork at Knockadoon, Ballycotton and East Ferry has been by far better this year than for the past three years, and the fishermen in many instances have had very good returns. A word of praise is due to the Civic Guards for the assistance they have afforded in patrolling the rivers and protecting the salmon fry. It is presumed that it was owing to their vigilance during the past year that we have had such a good salmon season this year. Our great misfortune is the destruction of fish in the nets which is caused by seals; not only do these seals take away the fish from the nets but they very considerably destroy the nets as well. From a financial point of view it would be one of the best day's work, to my mind, so far as the Minister for Fisheries is concerned, if he would tackle this question of the destruction of salmon by seals. Some time ago I drew the attention of the Minister to this state of affairs on the coast at Ballycotton, Knockadoon and into Youghal and I made a few suggestions to him with regard to the soldiers' station in Carlisle Fort. I suggested that it would be well to give them permission to shoot those seals along the shore at those places. I also suggested to the Minister that if he gave a prize for each seal shot by people living round the coast it would do a good deal.

There is no doubt that this question must be tackled; it is of the very greatest interest. Just imagine, as one easily can, a boat with its net, with eight, nine or ten salmon in the net, when one of these pests comes along, destroys five or six of the salmon and takes away five or six yards of the net as well. I say one of the best day's work, that the Department of Fisheries could do would be to provide some effective means of destroying these pests. From a financial point of view, as I have [65] stated it would be a great day's work for Irish fisheries.

I had a communication some time ago from the Minister with regard to the erection of a pier. I am sure the Minister is not losing sight of the necessity for carrying out that work. During the last storm we had two boats destroyed. The Minister sent down an engineer to investigate the matter, and he saw that these boats were useless to the fishermen. There are some boats down at Baltimore, that would be very useful and would fit in with the requirements of those fishermen who had lost their boats. The fishing industry is peculiar in its own way, because what applies to one district does not apply to another. As I say, there are boats at Baltimore that would be most useful to the fishermen at Rathcoursey. They do not want them for nothing. They are willing to pay for them if they get time. The Cork County Council are always willing to carry out their part in giving certain funds for the erection of piers around the coast. Some time ago we had a long controversy with regard to the pier at Knockadoon and in Ballvmacody. An engineer from the Department who investigated the matter was not quite satisfied as to whether it would be money well spent, if employed in the extension of that pier. But from local knowledge, and from what I have known of the people there, I would say that there is a place called Greenland, quite adjacent to Knockadoon, where a pier could be erected at very little expense and with great benefit to the fishermen. If the Department could not see its way to expend the money which we say should be spent in facilitating the fishermen at Knockadoon I would suggest to the Minister that he should ask his engineer to look at Greenland in order that he may see for himself that what I say is correct. The amount of money that would have to be spent in putting up a new pier or a slip would not amount to much more than the cost of the extension of the pier at Knockadoon and would give very much better results to the fishermen in Knockadoon than perhaps by the [66] extension of the pier. Speaking from what I know of the fishing industry and from what I have learned from people from time to time in Ballycotton, Knockadoon and Rathcoursey, the only real grievance they have is from the point of view of not getting more facilities to provide boats and fishing gear. They are satisfied to work hard and to pay back the amounts lent.

Much more could be done in that respect than is done at present. I know the case of a man in Ballycotton who got a loan and got his boat and is now making fine catches around the coast and disposing of them profitably to a Mr. Ross. Several of these people are making a splendid living in that direction but much more can be done with a little more energy as far as the fishermen are concerned and a little bit more leniency as far as the Department is concerned. I am glad the Minister is setting up this Committee and I am sure its report will be awaited with the greatest interest. The Committee is composed of men of exceptional ability who know the feeling of the country so far as the fishing industry is concerned.

I want again to stress the great point about the destruction of fish by seals along the coast in my constituency. I believe if we handled that question rightly and got certain facilities from the Minister of Defence or some other Department of the Executive we will find a way out of the difficulty. I have no doubt that men could be got who could be trusted if they were given a certain amount of ammunition to clear the coast of these pests from Cobh to Youghal. Seals have done more harm to the fishing industry than the trawlers that fish inside our waters. They have done more destruction around the coast than would be done by a fleet of French trawling vessels.

Captain Redmond: I am sure that everyone who listened to the speech of Deputy Mullins was impressed, as I was, by the general tone in which it was delivered and by the matter it contained. It seemed to me to be [67] a most comprehensive, useful and constructive addition to any discussion such as this. I would go further and say that it would be supported in the main from all quarters of the House. That strikes me as the great difficulty in tackling this question of Irish fisheries. I take it we are all agreed on the importance of this industry both as it exists and as it should be developed. The whole question is, how are we going, first of all, even to preserve it and, secondly, develop it as it should be developed? I can forecast in my own mind, at any rate, the line of defence that the Minister for Fisheries may have to adopt. He will possibly tell us once more that he is in total agreement with most of the observations, and even some of the suggestions, that have come from all quarters of the House; but—and this is a very big but—he is not in a position to accede to those requests and to further those suggestions because he is not the Minister for Finance. If that is, as it possibly may be, the line to be adopted by the Minister for Fisheries—and quite a comprehensible one for any Minister in his position——

Mr. Lynch: No, sir.

Captain Redmond: ——I would urge upon him to attack the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Lynch: The Deputy must understand that there is a collective responsibility and I cannot throw a matter on the Minister for Finance, even though it were his business. I have as much responsibility over what the Minister for Finance does as he has over what I do and if I adopted the line suggested it would be a ridiculous line and I am perfectly certain it would not be accepted by the House.

Captain Redmond: I quite accept the Minister's explanation and, of course, his acceptance of responsibility. But at the same time, being in the position as he is of Minister for Fisheries, I cannot get it out of my head that, anxious as he is to further [68] that Department and do everything in his power to develop that Department, he does keep knocking on the door of the Minister for Finance. I hope he does, because to my mind there is the real crux of our situation. We are a small country with, in proportion to our size and resources, a large seaboard, and the difficulty seems to be how we are to protect that seaboard from foreign incursions and how we are to assist the fishermen along the seaboard in their daily occupations.

In regard to the first question, undoubtedly what has been said and quoted from the leader-writer in the “Cork Examiner” does seem rather absurd—that one little gun-boat is to be sufficient to protect the whole of our coast. I do not know how many gun-boats it would take adequately to protect our coast and therefore it is not in that direction that I seek protection. Rather would I be anxious to have the Minister state, if he would be in a position to do so, what are, if any, the definite delimitations of our seaboard; namely, whether there is an international three-mile limit, and whether he is in a position to clear the air and let everyone know where that three-mile limit begins and ends. That may seem rather tautological, but in the case that recently occurred off County Wexford, which was heard before the District Justice in the City of Waterford, the question arose as to whether the limit was to be taken from the mainland or from the Saltee Islands. Neither the District Justice nor others seemed to be in a position definitely to state which course was the proper one. It seemed to ordinary common sense that if these islands are rateable property within the rateable bounds of the County Wexford therefore the limit, whatever it might be, ought to commence from the outskirts of these islands and not from the mainland. I am in the dark on that score and I would like the Minister to give us some definite information.

Undoubtedly, there have been a great many incursions into home waters by foreign boats and trawlers. I do not know what exactly these [69] French fishing boats are doing around the coast of Ireland. The patrol, or gunboats, however you may describe them, are cruising round and I do not know what their object is. I would like the Minister to enlighten us because all we know about the matter is what we have read in the shape of interviews in the newspapers. It would be well for us to know whether any negotiations are proceeding such as were suggested by the skipper of one of these boats the other day in an interview with a newspaper reporter, or whether they are just cruising round to see if there are any more odd lobsters that their fellow-countrymen might be able to pick up. We always seem to be up against a boundary question, whether we are discussing fish or flesh or good red herrings. Here we certainly have a boundary question again. It would be well if the Minister could enlighten us upon this question of international delimitation, if any such delimitation exists.

I would also like to support Deputy Mullins in his appeal with regard to the necessity for two solvent securities for the purchase of boats, gear, etc., for the coming year. I know the difficulty. I have experienced it myself in interviews I have had with fisher folk, constituents of mine, who tell me that it is next to impossible for them to get these securities. After all, as I have often thought, if they can get these solvent securities in order to raise a certain sum of money where is the necessity for them to go to the Department at all? If these poor, struggling fishermen can get two solvent securities to raise a certain sum of money, what is the necessity for them to go to the Ministry for a loan? On the contrary, I say that in order to avoid the necessity of having to get securities like that, they should get whatever help would be possible from the Minister. There is a great deal to be said on their behalf and I hope the Minister will take it into consideration.

There is also the question of the arrears due for past loans. There is something to be said on these grounds, that at the time these loans [70] were raised there was a possibility that prices were higher than they are now, and it might be possible to repay, if not all those loans, at least a considerable portion of them.

However, there is one thing that emerges from this debate. There seems to be unanimous satisfaction at the setting up of this Irish Fisheries Co-operative Association. The Minister should be very pleased at the manner in which it has been received, and at the good wishes that he has got from all quarters of the House about this Association. I wish to join with others in welcoming this Association. I do hope that the Minister, in spite of the fact that he is so loyal to his colleagues, including the Minister for Finance, will only keep knocking a little harder at that door, and that he will endeavour to get a little more in order to subsidise and encourage the industry which is latent there, which is absolutely at our very doors, and which, I am sorry to say from what I understand, is in its present position largely owing to the lack of financial support.

It is all very well, I know, to cry out for financial assistance. But as has been pointed out, there are other things that can be cut down or that can be done without. Here is an industry that is second to agriculture, if it is indeed second. It is actually there for the taking over and working. Not only is it there, but if we do not utilise it, it will be utilised and worked by others. It seems a crying shame that we cannot do something more to push on that industry and to encourage its development, a course, I suggest, far more profitable than starting new industries or proposing new means of employment. Here there is no need of speaking of a new industry when we have at our hands one actually in existence or which is capable of being made second to none in this country, or in any of the other countries that go to make up these islands.

Domhnall Ua Buachalla: Maidir le ceist na n-iascairí, sé mo bharúil nach bhfuil aon intinn ag an Rialtas ná ag [71] an Aire rud ar bith do dhéanamh chun ár n-iascairí do chosaint ó sna creachadóirí iasachta a thagann isteach annso chun ár n-iasc do thógaint leo. Níl a fhios agam an é is cúis leis sin, nach bhfuil an comhacht ag an Aire no nach bhfuil sé de mhisneach aige no ag an Rialtas, ordú do thabhairt do Chaptaen an “Mhuirchú” urchar do scaoile leis na creachadóirí seo chun a theasbáint dóibh nach bhfuil cead acu teacht isteach annso agus ár gcuid éisc do scuaba leo. Tá oileán beag, taobh thuaidh den Euróip, nach bhfuil ach beagán daoine ina gcomhnuidhe ann. Tháinig bád iascaireachta ó Shasana chun an oileáin sin le déanaí. Chuaidh an bád san laistigh den teorainn agus cad a thuit amach? Gabhadh an bád agus do baineadh na húirlisí iascaireachta de. Cuireadh fíneáil £3,000 air agus do dhíol lucht an bháid an méid sin. Níl a fhios agam cén chúis nach bhfuil sé in ár gcumas an rud céanna do dhéanamh annso. Seachtain ó shoin, rinne an tAire Gnóthaí Coigríche a dhícheall chun a chur i gcéill dúinn go bhfuil saoirse againn. Má táimíd saor, mar adeir sé, cé'n chúis nach bhfuil sé in ár gcumas na hiascaireachtaí do chosaint? Bhí a fhios againn-ne, agus bhí a fhios aige féin, nach bhfuilimíd saor. Má táimíd saor, cé'n chúis nach ndéantar rud ar na hiascairí? Deir sé linn go bhfuil bád ag an Roinn agus go bhfuil gunnaí air. B'fhéidir nach bhfuil ann ach gunnaí bréige. Ach má tá bád ann agus gunnaí air cé'n chúis nach gcuirtear in úsáid iad? Cé'n chúis go bhfuil na báid choigríche seo in ann teacht isteach agus ár gcuid éisc do ghoid? Cé'n chúis nach bhfuil sé i gcumas an Rialtais na fíneálacha do bhailiú?

Tá scéal i bpáipéirí an lae iniu mar gheall ar bháid airm atá ag teacht ón Fhrainnc chun ár n-iascaireachtaí do chosaint ó bháid iascaireachta na bhFranncach. Má's fíor é sin, is ait an scéal é. B'fhearr i bhfad níos mó bád beag a bheith againn agus meaisín-ghunnaí orra agus iad seo do chur in úsáid má tá gá leo. Tá bád-chosanta againn agus isé an t-ainm atá air ná [72] “Muirchú,” no “Cú na Mara.” Isé mo bharúil go mb'fhearr é sin d'atharú agus “Uan na Mara” do thabhairt air. B'fhearr i bhfad báid bheaga a bheith againn agus gunnaí do chur orra. Dá ndéanfaí sin, ní bheadh na hiaseairí coigríche ag teacht isteach agus ag goid ár n-éise.

Mr. S. Jordan: I do not intend to say very much in connection with this Vote, because it has occupied a fair amount of the time of this House already, and practically everything that can be said has been said by other speakers. I rise for the express purpose of getting a definite answer to a question that I put down some time ago.

On the 21st November, 1928, I put a question to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries as to whether he received a copy of a resolution passed by the Galway Urban District Council requesting the establishment of a fishing school in the Galway urban area for the Claddagh fishermen and, if so, what action it was intended to take in the matter. The Minister replied as follows:—“I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. Proposals for the establishment of a small number of preparatory schools along the lines of paragraph 229 of the Report of the Commission on Technical Education, for providing suitable education and training for boys likely to be engaged in the fishing industry, and for the appointment, as suggested in paragraph 231 of the same Report, of itinerant instructors to conduct short courses of instruction for part-time fishermen, are at present being examined by my Department and the Department of Education. In this connection the claims of the district referred to in the question have not been overlooked.”

As I say, that was in November, 1928. Last year, when this Vote was under discussion in July, I made reference to that matter in my contribution to the debate, and to a lot of other things which I do not desire to repeat here, because, honestly. I consider that the Minister, when this Vote is under discussion is more to be pitied than blamed. His task is a [73] thankless one. He is Minister for a Department that is handicapped in many ways. Every year when this Vote comes up for discussion there is always something new introduced. For instance now, in order that the Department might hide its face, we are told that the deep sea fisheries are about to be developed and that a Special Committee is considering the best form of their development.

Mr. Lynch: The Deputy is quite wrong; they will have nothing to do with deep-sea fisheries.

Mr. Jordan: I understood that they would.

Mr. Lynch: The Deputy ought to look it up again.

Mr. Jordan: They will have something to do with fisheries anyhow.

Mr. Lynch: Not deep-sea.

Mr. Jordan: Well, with fisheries. That is the decoy that is thrown out now in order that we should not give the criticism to this Vote which it richly deserves.

Mr. Lynch: Give it all.

Mr. Jordan: No. Really I am serious when I say that the Minister is more to be pitied than blamed.

Mr. Lynch: I do not want anybody's pity. I never look for it.

Mr. Jordan: The Minister for Agriculture recently said that he heard that I was going to join the Salvation Army, so I must practise for it, and I am not going to be hard on the Minister for Fisheries. I want an answer from him in regard to the matter I have raised. Last year, when replying, owing to the length of the discussion, the Minister occupied only about twelve minutes.

Mr. Lynch: I had exactly one minute and a half to reply.

Mr. Jordan: The Minister would nearly win the Lincoln. I hope when he is replying, now that he will have sufficient time, he will definitely state whether these preparatory schools were established along the lines laid down in the Report of the Commission on Technical Education [74] and, if they have been established, where they are, whether there is one in Galway and, if not, whether he is going to stand over this statement he made that in connection with the preparatory schools the claims of the district referred to in my question have not been overlooked. I would like the Minister also to state when we may look forward to the establishment of a school in the Claddagh area, an area which is dependent on the fishing industry for its existence.

Mr. Lynch: You do not want it out in the Claddagh?

Mr. Jordan: I want it somewhere in the West.

Mr. Powell: I rise to support the amendment in the name of Deputy Derrig to refer this Vote back for consideration. My reason for coming to that decision is that I am not satisfied with the present condition of the fishing industry, nor can I hope for great things when I consider the history of the Department in the past. We have been told that a Bill is to be introduced but we have frequently been told the same thing and so far the Bill has not materialised. Until that Bill has materialised I think that many of the bouquets which have been thrown at the Minister should be reserved. In looking up previous estimates I found some things that are particularly striking. I notice that for fishery services this year there has been allocated the sum of £9,800. Last year it was £18,000. The total in all is £47,270 and the Minister explains that the reduction is due to the Ministry having charge of fisheries only for a certain number of months until the new Association about to be set up comes into operation. There is, however, nothing definite about it and consequently we have to take the Estimates as being for the services up to the 31st March, 1931.

It is on that basis we criticise it, and we cannot afford to criticise it on what the Minister may do within the next few months. It may take several months to bring into operation the proposed Association to deal with the fishing industry. I do [75] not think that this reduction to £9,800 in the fishery services is merely on account of the proposed Association which is about to be set up to take charge of fisheries. Rather do I consider, from looking up the Estimates of previous years and the history of the Department, that it is a definite reduction to fit in with the year-by-year reduction of the expenditure on the fishery services. I went back over the records and I found that in the year 1925-26 a sum of £39,000 was devoted to this service; the following year £34,000; the year after that £27,000; in 1928-29 £24,000; in 1929-30 £18,000, and this year £9,860. If we go into these figures we will find that of this £9,860 about £5,000—the exact figure is £5,050—is devoted to sea fishing. I think it is not very difficult to plot a graph to show the gradual decay which has taken place in this industry. Side by side with that you might place the increased cost of the Department. I do not wish to criticise or to be taken as being opposed to natural increases in salary, due to increments and so on, but taking it by way of contrast it is rather interesting to find that salaries have increased practically every year in that Department, whereas the expenditure on services has been reduced from £39,000 to £9,000.

These figures, I am sure, give some indication of the steps that are being taken in the Department and show whether the industry is thriving or not. I do not think that anybody can satisfy himself that the industry is going ahead. It is a vital industry. There are places in Co. Galway, in Connemara, to which, during the years of the war, special trains had to be brought to have the huge catches of fish conveyed to the markets. In one place, Roundstone, where there were several boats, there are now only two. In the Claddagh district, and in other districts in Galway. similar conditions obtain. Indeed, a similar state of affairs obtains all along the West coast. I think that the most serious aspect of the industry [76] is that it is merely dying; it is not dead. It would be better if it were dead, so that the Government would have to consider replacing it by some other industry or building up the industry out of the new.

People who might criticise are being lulled to sleep by the statement that such and such is being done for the improvement of the fisheries. The amount under the heading of loans for boats and gear is £1,250; last year it was £5,000. I am told by fishermen at Galway that a good boat would cost roughly about £2,000 and £1,250 is the total that the Ministry can give as loans for boats and gear in the whole State. We find that the estimate for re-conditioning boats takes £50 and maintenance £100. Very little work in the way of re-conditioning a boat can be done for £50. I do not quite understand how £100 is used for maintenance. We have been told that the Minister intends to consider and has been considering old claims for money advances to the fishermen and that satisfactory progress has been made. That at all events is a satisfactory step and it is one of the things with which we are pleased, because on the many occasions on which money has been asked for here, we have been given promises, and down the country along the coast we see nothing as a result of these promises.

I mentioned here before, and I got confirmation of the statement from the Minister in reply to a question I raised a year ago, that he has nine boats in Galway. These boats are in various stages of decay just like the industry itself. Some of them are useless; some of them are gone beyond the stage of re-conditioning and that £50 for re-conditioning in the Estimate would not go very far with them. There are others which are fairly good and some others that with a little expenditure could be made seaworthy. The fishermen are clamouring for these boats. They were taken from the fishermen by the present Ministry and they were brought into Galway and left down at the docks. Of course they are removed now to the most remote [77] dock in Galway where even a Minister, if he visits the City of the Tribes, may not be able to see them. Only a fortnight ago I went to see if anything had come of the promises and if there was any indication of new life in the fishing industry round the docks or at the fishing stations in Galway. I found none. I found nothing but decayed boats huddled up together and falling asunder. A sum of £50 will not re-condition these boats and the Minister will not loan them or present them to the fishermen. Rather will he allow them to remain there to the worms, falling to pieces.

There are also in the Galway district nine buildings which belong to the Ministry. One of these, which cost an enormous amount of money, fell to pieces owing to storms and lack of attention and had to be sold in pieces. There is none of it left now except the ruins, the part which was built with stone and mortar. That is all that is left. There are other ruins also along the coasts, which are an indication of the steps taken by the Ministry in handling the fishing industry and bringing it to the present stage of decay and dying that it is in. Fishermen who seem to be well informed tell me that there is a considerable amount of gear and equipment in the stores in Galway and that they have none. They are not able to go fishing for want of gear and tackle and they tell me that some of this gear is absolutely rotting. I do not know whether that is true or not, but that is the statement that they make.

There is one question that a large number of fishermen in the Galway district consider the greatest factor tending towards the decay of the fishing industry in that district. It is this question that has been brought up here over and over again since this debate started. That is the question of protection and the question of poaching by foreign trawlers. Poachers have been captured and have been let off seat free. What is the use of that? Poachers were captured in Galway Bay well [78] inside the three-mile limit and were let off scot free. It is costing £8,000 to run the patrol boat. I spoke to the captain and members of the crew of that boat. I am informed that it has not a sufficient crew to be able to hold a poacher which it captures. Of course it has no gun. In these days considerable attention is paid to the French poachers. There is nothing very much about the British poachers, but as far as I can understand, in the Galway district it is the British poachers who are doing all the damage. Welsh poachers, Scotch poachers and English poachers come in there, and very rarely do I hear anything about French poachers.

In connection with British fishing trawlers I asked the Minister whether within the past twelve months—this is a year ago now—any British trawlers have been captured fishing within the forbidden limits, whether fines were imposed, and, if so, whether these fines have been paid. His reply states: “During the period referred to in the Question one British steam trawler was captured fishing within the forbidden limits” —evidently the limits are definitely outlined—“and her gear seized and sold. Two others were captured, but their gear was not seized. No fines were imposed.” What is the meaning of it all? What is the meaning of paying £8,000 a year for a patrol boat? What is the idea of all the talk about protection? Our fish are being swept away by these trawlers, our fishermen's lines have been broken. I have letters here to prove it. Even their own lives have been endangered by these trawlers. When the local fishermen tried to get the identification marks on the foreign boats the poaching trawlers circled around and tried to sink them. Those boats trawl the bottom of the sea. They destroy the beds. Fish will not come there to spawn again in a generation. So the fishermen say. And all for nothing. No gear is seized, no fines are imposed. There was one boat captured a few years ago in Galway. I think it was on the night of the election It was released, and going out [79] the Bay they put down their nets again and fished, and they were thirty miles inside the three-mile limit.

Mr. Lynch: Thirty yards.

Mr. Powell: No, from Arran to Galway, from Galway Bay out. The three-mile limit was taken from Arran, and it is more than thirty yards from Galway to Arran. It takes three hours by boat to get to Galway. I think it is about 30 miles or more. They were fishing all the way out from Galway, after having been taken in for having committed an infringement of the international fishing laws.

What, I say again, is the necessity for all the pother? Why are they arrested and released again? Why are we asked to vote £8,000? If there were no other reason why Deputies should oppose this Vote I submit this is one reason. I was asked a question by fishermen in Galway as to whether any fines had been paid in the past six or seven years. I would like the Minister to answer that and to state the amount. Has the “Muirchú” power to hold the captured trawlers until the fines are paid? I say again if the fines are not recoverable what is the use of the “Muirchú”? Is there any power to hold the French lobster poachers?

In some places here years ago £120 fine was imposed in pre-war days and all the gear confiscated. Why is that departed from? It is stated that some of the gear that has been seized was sold in Dublin and that it is bought by other trawling companies and used again by poaching trawlers. I do not know whether that is true or not. That idea obtains in the Galway district. Before I depart from that perhaps it would be interesting to read a statement that was made and signed by 140 fishermen from Galway who are well-known anyhow by the Deputies from Galway to be fishermen. I do not intend to read their names, but anyone who wishes can have the list. It is headed “Stealing our Fish,” 2nd March, [80] 1929—English Trawlers in Galway Bay. Claddagh Men Angry.

“The Claddagh fishermen—a patient, long-suffering people— have made representations to the Government to take drastic action to deal with the English trawler owners who are stealing the fish in Galway Bay. We have received the following in reference to the matter:—We, the undersigned Galway fishermen, beg to bring to your notice the following state of affairs that has existed in Galway for the past fortnight:—

“Dozens of English steam trawlers are reaping a rich harvest of the sea from the Cliffs of Moher into eight miles of Mutton Island Light, and thus depriving us of a way of living. They are trawling by day and night up to the East of Black Head and we are helpless to prevent them. They have the whole bay scraped up, and we hope some of our T.D.s will take the matter up and put a stop to this crying scandal. The ‘Helga’ or ‘Muirchú’ seems to be unable to stop this poaching. For the past four or five years the English poachers have become more daring and respect no line or net fishermen. They seem to own the bay for themselves.”

In connection with that, I had this year another statement as a result of which I went to the Department to ask them to send the “Muirchú” to Galway Bay district. I think it took three weeks before the boat arrived in Galway Bay. That was an exact parallel with what happened a year ago, when, as a result of telegrams that were sent by various people in the Galway district, including the Captain of the “Dun Angus,” it took from the 21st February to the 13th March before the “Muirchú” sailed into Galway Bay. Of course, by that time the poachers had known that the matter had been raised. However, some of them were captured. This is the letter which I received:—

“The Claddagh boats fishing yesterday after shooting 2,400 fathoms of spillets, each boat twice returned with small catches of haddock, cod, [81] ling and whiting (this is the season for above classes of fish). They report after fishing around South Island (Arran) out as far as the Cliffs of Moher—poor fishing and no wonder at it, at this time of the year when round fish should be plenty up to Black Head and off the North shore of Spiddal—

The following Skippers report—

Michael Harvey—Boat, “Ave Maria” Owen Fitzgerald—Boat, “Volunteer” Martin Oliver— Boat. “True Light” Tim McHugh—Boat. “Shamrock.”

(1) We have seen the steam trawlers at Hags Head yesterday morning—right in by the shore— This tallies with the Arran man's report of last week of a steam trawler working away for 3 days and clearing out loaded— after robbing the fish. From now on the trawlers will play the devil with the place the same as they did last year unless a few captures are made in time and heavy fines inflicted. It must be the same as it was in pre-war days—£120 and all gear confiscated—but the gear to be publicly burned (not sent to Dublin to be bought over by other steam trawling companies).

There is no use in the “Helga” coming in by daylight. Let her spend a night around Arran and do her duty—or there'll be dirty work started, if the fishermen are to be robbed of a living this year again. The latter part of that shows the feeling of these people. It shows that they cannot remain quiet much longer. The editor of this paper started by saying: “The Claddagh fishermen—a patient, long suffering people—have made representations to the Government to take drastic action to deal with the English trawler owners who are stealing the fish in Galway Bay.” The fishermen say they cannot stand it any longer They see their harvest being filched away from them by foreign trawlers and that the Department are not taking sufficient steps to deal with the poaching.

From the reply I received to the question in regard to the three-mile limit and from other answers I heard [82] the Minister give, I am not quite sure that he is sure that the three-mile limit is defined. The Captain of the “Muirchú” told me that some other foreign boats could come in further in the Waterford area than the British because of some obsolete international law. Perhaps the Minister could throw some light on that. These are some of the things that I wished to speak about.

There is just one other point about the poaching and it is this— that along with the immediate destruction of the fish and of the spawning beds, these poachers when they make a capture gut the fish and throw the waste into the sea. Wherever that lodges, of course, there will be no spawning for a considerable period.

Another point that I did not hear mentioned during the debate. It is that the shoals of certain classes of fish are broken up and sent farther out. There are large numbers of line fishermen in the Arran district. There are some 20 boats there and they could take a good toll from the sea if they had proper equipment, but the cost of equipment has gone up so much since pre-war days that it is impossible for them to carry on as much fishing work as they would like to, and it has been suggested that the Ministry would consider selling the gear that they have in Galway. I think, according to the scale of decay since 1925 or 1926, that some of the gear that was held at that time or earlier must still be in the hands of the Department at Galway. It may have deteriorated, but if given at reduced prices to the fishermen it would help them to engage more in the fishing industry, a thing that they desire. I would ask the Minister to consider that point. A net that used to cost about £1 5s. 0d. now costs something like £6. There are twenty curraghs in the Arran districts without lines. Why not help them for line fishing for cod, ling and haddock? It is getting late for that now, but the mackerel season is just coming in and also, in some places, the herring season will soon be here.

[83] That reminds me of another matter. If the Department wait until they set up the new Association this year's harvest of the sea will have gone by the board, and some steps must be taken immediately to help the fishermen. Every day from this on the mackerel fishing will be going by the board, and from June on the herring fishing. Some arrangement should be made by the Department for loans. Some of the ten boats I have mentioned are lying there in a rotting condition, and some of them are in a pretty good condition. They are grouped together in a remote dock at Galway. These should be reconditioned and given to the fishermen to tide over the interval between now and the time when the Association will b