Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 Jul 1929

Vol. 31 No. 6

Private Notice Question. - Lough Foyle Fisheries.

asked the Minister for External Affairs whether his attention had been directed to an affidavit made in the High Courts, Belfast, by the Manager of the Foyle and Bann Fisheries, Ltd., claiming that the waters of Lough Foyle to the open sea between the point of Greencastle and Magilligan are situated in "Northern Ireland," and whether he has any statement to make to the House in regard to the matter.

The attention of the Government has been directed to this matter. Action is being taken, but I am not in a position to make a statement to the House.

Might I express the hope that the Minister and the Executive Council will keep a close eye in regard to developments in this matter so as not to allow this usurping junta to carry out a decree of the Six County courts against poor fishermen, and also to see that the fishermen will not be prevented from earning their livelihood in a legitimate manner?

I observe that Deputy Cassidy has asked, by way of private notice question, for information on a matter of which I have given notice. The matter is one which I wish to raise under Standing Order 27. I request leave to move the adjournment for the purpose of calling attention to a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the situation on Lough Foyle arising out of the forcible seizure, on July 20th, 1929, by agents of the Foyle and Bann Fishery Co. of nets the property of licensed Saorstát fishermen, and the infliction of personal injuries on four Saorstát citizens; and the need for immediate action on the part of the Executive Council to protect the rights of Saorstát fishermen in Lough Foyle and to prevent conflicts which may lead to loss of life.

The Deputy is claiming under the provisions of Standing Order 27 to move the adjournment of the Dáil for the purpose of calling attention to a matter of urgent public importance. I would, I think, if the sitting had been an ordinary one have accepted that notice, but the circumstances attending to-day's sitting are not such as normally obtain, and in these circumstances it will be difficult to give full effect to the provisions of Standing Order 27. The House already, has, by Order, been adjourned until 23rd October. It meets to-day specially under the provisions of a certain Standing Order for the transaction of certain specified business which is set out in the notice signed by the Ceann Comhairle summoning the Dáil. When that business is concluded, if it is concluded to-day, the House will automatically stand adjourned, without question put, until 23rd October in accordance with the Order previously made. Therefore, if the Deputy's notice were received by the Chair and received the requisite support of twelve Deputies, which I am assuming it would, the matter would be set down for discussion under the provisions of Standing Order 27 at 7 p.m. on Wednesday or Thursday which now, under the provisions of a subsequent Order, becomes 9 p.m. If consideration of the matters on the Order Paper has concluded by 9 o'clock, it would not be possible to divide on the Motion for the Adjournment, but discussion could arise at the conclusion of business. On the other hand, if the matter arose before the business was concluded, I think that under the circumstances the House would perforce have to agree to the Motion for the Adjournment. The purpose of Standing Order 27, which is, I think, to get a discussion with a division, if required, on a particular matter could not be made effective. I think the better solution would be to raise the matter at the conclusion of the Orders of the Day and, by agreement, there could then be a debate for something longer than the ordinary time allowed for discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment.

It was my intention to raise another matter on the conclusion of business, namely, the ill-treatment of Mr. T.J. Ryan, of Crannagh, Co. Clare, by members of the police force. The statement made by the Minister for External Affairs, in reply to Deputy Cassidy, appears to me to be altogether unsatisfactory. I would like very much to raise this matter.

I think that the matter could be raised at the end of public business, but it will then become a matter raised for discussion on the adjournment. I think that only one such matter can be discussed. I will take the Deputy's notice for 9 o'clock.

If we had an assurance from the Minister for External Affairs that the Executive Council are going to exercise their rights of jurisdiction over the Foyle we would be satisfied.

I have already intimated that action is being taken and that I would not be prepared to make a statement. I would like to make it more explicit, that in any debate arising on the Motion for the Adjournment I would not take part.

Under the circumstances, as the Minister would not reply, and as my chief reason for bringing the matter up was to get a definite expression of attitude from the Executive Council on the matter I mentioned, I propose to raise the question of the ill-treatment of Mr. T.J. Ryan on the Motion for the Adjournment.

That will arise on the conclusion of the business on the Order Paper.

Top
Share