Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Jun 1929

Vol. 30 No. 15

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 59—Marine Service.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £3,512 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, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Muir-Sheirbhíse (Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894-1921, Crown Lands Acts, 1829-1866).

That a sum not exceeding £3,512 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, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Marine Service (Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894-1921, Crown Lands Acts, 1829-1866).

The maintenance of this service is essential for the administration and control of our merchant shipping and of other merchant shipping visiting our ports. It is principally concerned with the giving of certificates of fitness and seeing that all the statutory conditions are fulfilled and for our engineers to make sure that seagoing vessels are fit to carry passengers. Provision is also made to ensure that no contagious disease, or anything like that, prevails on board ships. Life-saving is controlled by the stations that we have around the coast. The life-saving service is controlled by an officer in charge of each of the 53 stations that we have. The other items in the Estimate practically explain themselves.

I presume it is in order on this Estimate to ask for a little further explanation of the policy of the Executive Council in regard to coast erosion. The other day the President said that the problem would be considered by an Inter-Departmental Committee. That is, of course, rather vague. When will that Inter-Departmental Committee sit? Is it likely to report within a convenient period, and, meantime, has the Government any policy with regard to the very big problem that exists, for instance, at Wicklow town, where something like £35,000 worth of property is in danger?

I do not think that coast erosion would arise in any way at all on this service. There seems to be no sub-head in the Vote making any provision for that.

Would it not come under the heading of "Marine"?

No, I think, prima facie, it would not.

Unless we send down ships to catch the stuff as it goes out.

Does the President mean that this service has now got a boat?

No, we are still land marines.

I think this question would come under the heading of "Marine."

The Deputy will understand that if we could raise on an Estimate a question with regard to something which is not in it there would be no limit at all. A matter can be discussed on an Estimate if provision is made for it in the Vote. There is no provision for coast erosion, and if the question is raised as a matter of policy I think it should be raised rather on the Minister's salary.

Or on the Board of Works Vote.

In view of the fact that there has been a misunderstanding, that I thought I could raise the matter on this Vote—it may be that I should not be so ignorant —as I was entitled, presumably, to raise it on the Minister's salary, perhaps it would not be too late now to ask for some information on the point.

There are a great many people in that particular town who are very anxious as the summer advances to ascertain whether any protection is to be given to them before next winter. As I have said, there is about £35,000 worth of property in danger there. The engineers who have examined into the matter, say that it would take something like £20,000 to build suitable defences.

I am afraid that the Deputy will have to take some opportunity other than on this Vote of raising that question.

Perhaps the Deputy could raise it on the Vote for the President's office.

I have no responsibility as regards this.

I am not accepting Deputy Davin's suggestion. I think the only thing Deputy Moore could do would be to ask departmentally about the matter he mentioned. I think he would have to do that by way of Parliamentary question. On this particular Vote, I do not think he could raise the matter at all.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether his Department has anything to do with the Irish Lights Service?

Could the Parliamentary Secretary state how many lives this service saved last year?

It has given all the assistance in its power in the saving of lives. The system that the life-saving service adopts is this: there is a complete telephone system connecting up all the stations. The stations are in telephonic communication also with the chief officer in Dublin, so that immediately there is any danger of a disaster at sea, that information is communicated to the nearest life-boat station, and the life-boat then does its part of the work. We have information that on every occasion that the life-boat has been requisitioned there was a manly and expeditious response.

Am I to understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that this service in fact did nothing last year except to telephone for the life-boat?

That is all.

Is there no one here to tell us what the boat is for?

Would it be in order to ask how the negotiations stand with regard to taking over the Irish Lights Service?

The parliamentary Secretary is not in charge of that.

Who is in charge?

That is not a question for the Ceann Comhairle to answer.

All I can say is that there are negotiations going on, and I think they will be satisfactory from our point of view.

As the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that he has something to do with the life-saving service, I wonder would he make representations to the Irish Lights authorities to attend more regularly to their ships than they have been doing, and not to be leaving the men on the light-ships without food for a period of a fortnight and more.

Irish Lights again.

It is, but it is life-saving too.

Vote put and agreed to.
Ordered: That progress be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported.
The Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Top
Share