I have not got them at the moment. If the Deputy puts down a question I will try to get them. Deputy Clery, I think, raised a question about the additional staff. There is provision for £1,000 in the Estimate for two inspectors of rural industries, as against £400 for one inspector in last year's Vote. The proposal is to obtain two officers of first-class training and experience, one to deal with the hand-weaving industry and the other with the hand-knitting and machine industries. These are regarded as being of considerable potential value, as the original arrangement of one officer dealing with the two things did not prove satisfactory. Deputy Clery asked what the £40,000 for the provision of raw material would be spent on. It will be spent on yarn for the weaving of tweeds and on yarns for the knitting of socks, cardigans and knitted wear, as well as on linen and thread for embroidery and other supplies. These supplies are bought by tender and are examined as to quality by inspectors.
With regard to the kelp business, I think Deputy Hogan need not have any fear that any member amongst the kelp gatherers will be in the least deceived. The Deputy stated that we have issued certain instructions concerning the burning of kelp and he is afraid that these may be attributed to the Advisory Committee. I want to pay them this tribute. The committee met twice and did extremely good work. They served their purpose. I have not called them together since because I did not think there was any necessity to do so. I have not any intention of calling them together again because I believe they served their purpose at the time. I did not know that there was any need for a formal disbanding but if I find there is I can do that. Deputy Derrig suggested that as many of the kelp makers had associations in the past with certain buyers, they would be glad to continue their associations with these buyers. I do not think the Deputy was quite clear about the position. I am perfectly satisfied that he is not from the information at my disposal.
I think I could nearly guess what his view would be on the matter. One of the principal reasons for the extremely depressed state of the industry, as it was when we found it, was the fact that there existed, and still exists, a combine of big iodine manufacturers. These persons were able to exercise complete control over the industry, both here and across channel and, indeed, in other countries as well. They actually divided up the coast amongst themselves, arranged where each person was to buy, and fixed the actual price to be paid for kelp in the country as a whole. The Deputy may have in his mind some person living in the country but if there was such person he was acting only as an agent of the combine. The members of the combine are for the most part resident in England. The kelp makers have had pretty hard experience in dealing with this combine in most cases. I am glad to say that the attempt made by the combine last year to break up the organisation of the kelp makers met with very little success and I hope that this year it will meet with even less. The members of the combine got an opportunity to come to the Department. All buyers of kelp were invited to the Department to discuss arrangements for buying last year. The French buyers, who are not members of the combine, came to the Department and we came to mutually satisfactory arrangements. The British combine, however, refused to have anything to do with us and tried to buy against us. We intend this year, as far as we can do so, to see that they will buy our kelp from us and, if they do not, that they will not get any kelp at all. I do not think that there need be any sympathy with them because their attitude towards the kelp gatherers in the past was rather harsh.
Deputy Dr. Tubridy made some accusations with regard to certain agents in the Connemara area. I asked him for details or to supply me with the name of the person affected. He did not do so and said that he would ask for the permission of the person, but I have not yet got particulars of the case. I am sorry that the Deputy is not here at the moment because I would suggest to him that, if the person concerned is afraid to give his name, he surely should not desire to have the matter ventilated at all in the House. When such matters are reported to the Deputy I think that a better way than ventilating them in the House would be to come to the Department and explain the matter, so that they could deal with it. Otherwise the raising of such matters here would really mean that if he did not give his name the person would suffer just as much. I do not think that there is anything in that, because there are obviously ways by which a particular person could have a remedy. Deputy Dr. Tubridy also wanted to know why we have a person in Gorumna as agent who is not an Irish speaker. The Deputy referred all the time to a man, but I have found out that our agent there is a lady who is an Irish speaker and a native of the place. I made inquiries this morning as to who our agents were in Kilronan and Inisheer and I was informed that both of them are Irish speakers but the man in Kilronan cannot write Irish.
With regard to the housing in the Gaeltacht, Deputy Derrig wanted to know how much of the money which was sanctioned had been paid. I gather that about £16,000 has been paid out of the £80,000 that has been sanctioned. That is the proportion up to now but during the summer, when houses will be built more quickly, the rate of payment of the grant will rise correspondingly. Grants will be paid according as persons qualify to receive them. The quicker they get on with the work of building the better will I be pleased. Deputy Dr. Tubridy wanted to know why all these inspections were necessary. Our system is that there is an inspection first before the work is started, in order to ascertain what particular type of house is to be built, what material has been bought, and whether the foundations have been dug. Inspection is necessary before payment of the grant. As the house is going up there is an inspection and a further portion of the grant is then paid. That is necessary, even for the sake of the person who is getting the house built, as it is an assurance to him that the handy-man whom he has employed is doing the work properly when the inspector passes the work. It is also an assurance to the Department that, when a grant is sanctioned for a house of certain dimensions, these conditions have been carried out and that the person who is building the house did not afterwards cut off some things for which he got a grant. As I say, these inspections are necessary and, in most cases, are very helpful to a man who is having a house built.
Deputy T. O'Connell inquired as to the rate of interest charged on loans under the Gaeltacht Housing Act. The rate is five and a half per cent. He also inquired as to what is being done to assist people in the Gaeltacht to take advantage of the scheme of combined purchasing as regards materials. Quotations have been invited from the principal suppliers in the country for the whole of the materials required under the Act. These tenders were received last week and are being examined. We are not in a position to accept any tender. We are not the persons who are building the houses. All we can do is to place these on the list and advise persons who are building to get their materials from the different persons in order. Last year, pending the completion of the combined purchasing system, provisional arrangements were made with merchants in different places which turned out very satisfactory, as the persons who were building the houses got very reasonable terms.
In regard to teachers' residence in the Gaeltacht, Deputy Derrig rather confounded the position of the teacher with that of an ordinary civil servant. The teacher is in a different position. He cannot usually be shifted about from one place to another at will, whereas most civil servants can be transferred from one place to another according as the exigencies of the Departments require. The teacher is not employed by the State but by the manager of a particular school, and when he has got his position he cannot be removed except for grave misconduct. The problem is not so much one of keeping good teachers in the Gaeltacht as of enticing good teachers to go there. It is all very well for us to be altruistic and tell people what they should do through patriotic motives and that good teachers should remain in the Gaeltacht. When, however, a teacher in the country with a growing family feels the economic pinch he is naturally anxious to improve his position. If an opportunity comes to him of getting an appointment in a school in the neighbourhood of Dublin, it is very hard to expect him, if there is not some reasonable compensation given to him, to withhold an application for such a position by means of which he would have an opportunity of educating his children more cheaply than in the Gaeltacht. At any rate I think there is a case for the provision of this small sum. In some cases it will go to teachers already in schools in the Gaeltacht. At any rate it will have the effect of enticing other teachers to go there. These residences will become the property of the State and will be rented to the teacher while he, or she, remains a teacher in the school. The teacher will be liable for some rent and also to keep the building in repair during his or her occupancy.
I have no idea what the rent will be. That is a matter between the Education Department and the Board of Works. I am only concerned with getting the site, and putting up the building.
Deputy Murphy and other Deputies referred to minor marine works. Deputy Carney and, I think, Deputy Hogan of Clare also dealt with this matter. The position with regard to minor marine works is that, as everybody knows, there are a huge number of applications constantly coming in for these works. Some of them are genuine applications, for which a good case can be made, but in many cases, the application is an entirely flimsy one. In parts of the country persons in the past have been accustomed to getting grants for putting up slips for boats and piers on a certain local demand. Very often, in a considerable number of cases at any rate, there was not justification for the expenditure. I have been myself on at least two piers which are entirely dry-land piers. A boat was never pulled up on them, and they were being used as promenades by the people of the locality. We have to be extremely careful to see that money is not expended in that way. I will admit that, in most of the cases put up nowadays, there is at least a prima facie case. We have now a committee to examine all applications that come in, and to examine side by side with them all the existing works on the coast, so that we will have a full picture of the problem. They will place all applications in the order in which they should be placed, in the order of urgency, and they will probably state in regard to many of them that there is no real necessity for building them at all.
With regard to inland fisheries, Deputy Derrig mentioned the fall in the value of these fisheries last year. I think that can be better explained by the fall in prices in Great Britain than by the fall in the quantity caught. The price fell in Great Britain from 2/6 to 1/8. That had the effect of stimulating the consumption of salmon to an extent at home that probably had not been reached for a considerable time before.
A good deal has been said by various Deputies about the general usefulness of hatcheries, with which I entirely agree. The Department is always ready to help local hatcheries, and even where we can, to help local anglers associations in various ways by securing for them, at cheap rates, fry which they can let into the local streams and rivers. The principal drawback and the difficulty which presents itself to us occasionally in the establishment of local hatcheries is the difficulty of getting good local men who would look after the hatcheries. It is not an extremely technical job. It is to a certain extent technical, but it is very hard to get the type of person who will exercise the necessary care. Care is more necessary than any technical knowledge, and I understand the most dangerous time is when the fry is being let into the river. I understand that it is quite easy to kill the great majority of them at that period if the temperature of the water into which they are being released is not very near the temperature of the water from which they are being taken.
Deputy Derrig was anxious to know why these State grants to conservators have not now disappeared since the Act of 1925 provides that the rates on the value of fisheries should go to the Board to help them in the policing of rivers. The position is that many of these boards do not benefit greatly by the 1925 Act. The fisheries have been of very little value from the rating point of view. In several cases we had to continue the grants that existed formerly. In many other cases—take the Limerick Board and the Cork Board—you have very extensive rights of public fishing for which there are no rates paid but which, at the same time, have to be protected. These also have to get some help from the State in the way of a grant. I might also mention that the 1925 Act is a temporary provision. I hope to have it extended, of course, and made permanent, but the provision in the 1925 Act to hand over the rates on the value of fisheries to boards only lasts for nine years, and it will expire about the year 1934. There is a case still for continuing these grants to boards, many of whom have not got an increase to any extent in their finances, while many others have large public fisheries to protect for which they get no rates.
I was asked what was the provision of £400 for a trout hatchery. There has been a proposition before us for some time to establish a trout hatchery on the Corrib at Oughterard. I have had considerable difficulty with that. As a matter of fact, I wanted the hatchery which we were to establish to be a special State hatchery, but the Corrib people are afraid that if Corrib fish are let into other rivers in the country the Corrib will lose three-fourths of its amenities, and that the attraction will be taken from the Corrib and bestowed on the rivers into which Corrib fish are let. I think there is a case there for a smaller special hatchery for the Corrib than I at first contemplated. The question of a State trout hatchery has been examined for a considerable time. Scientists in the Department have examined various sites. One fairly well favoured is another portion of the Corrib. Others have been examined in the south and on the Boyne, but we have not yet decided which is the most suitable site. I think there is a case for a State hatchery, and that it will justify the expenditure on it.
Deputy Anthony referred to cases in which sea trout are caught on brown trout rods. He mentioned that if a salmon trout was sufficiently foolish to take the bait of the brown trout, the man who caught it would have to throw it into the river dead or alive. The law is in that position at the moment and if a man is caught in possession of a sea trout he is liable to certain penalties. I would like to meet Deputy Anthony as he is usually very reasonable in his demands but I think it would be utterly impossible to make any concession there because if you change the law so that if a person who genuinely caught a salmon trout on a brown trout fly, would get off without a penalty, well then everybody who caught a salmon trout would put forward the case that he was fishing for brown trout. The fines for the infringements of these Acts are very severe and practically in all these cases memorials are sent forward to the Minister for Justice for a reduction.
I promised that when such an appeal would come up if I were satisfied that there was a genuine case of a man fishing for brown trout and getting a salmon trout—if that were absolutely established to my satisfaction—I would be prepared to recommend the Minister for Justice to reduce the fine substantially or to remit it altogether. As far as changing the law is concerned that could not be done. It would make the thing impossible for the boards of conservators.
The question of several fisheries has been raised. The question of the several fisheries, the question of the confiscation of the rights of persons who own several fisheries, and so on, has been canvassed a good deal. Confiscation is a fairly big word and it is something which I, personally, would not be prepared to consider at all. As to whether or not these persons have a title to their particular fisheries, I think that that is not a matter for me to question. I think some interested person must be the person who will question these rights of several fisheries. It is not my business to go round the country and question the title of any man as to whether or not his title is good in law, any more than it would be the job of the Minister for Agriculture to go round the country and question the title of a man to his land. If a man thinks he has a right to fish in a certain place which another person holds as a several fishery there is a way for him to challenge that right. That is an expensive way, but it is not my job to discover whether a man has a right to a several fishery.
The question of several fishery purchase is one that would need very great consideration now because at the moment, where the fisheries have gone with the land to the riparian owner I understand that the fisheries have suffered very considerably. I understand that the riparian owners themselves do not seem to have a proper appreciation of the value of what they have, and that each one is rather more determined to take what he can out of the place adjacent to his particular piece of land, than that they should come together and conserve the whole fishery so as to get something out of it. In other words, it is a case where the man down the river is scooping all he can and leaving as little as he can for the man above him. I am afraid if you had the fisheries divided up into small pieces you would have a similar thing happening all over and it would not be good for the fishery. I must say that the Deputy who raised that matter did not suggest anything of the kind, but it would be tantamount to that. I cannot see how the State would be able to preserve these fisheries if the State were to take them all over. To preserve them would cost a great deal more than it costs the individual proprietors to preserve them at present.
I think it was Deputy Corish who raised some question about the election of the conservators. I think his point was that persons with sporting rights, the rod fishermen in the river, had all the weight of the board as against the working fisherman, at the mouth of the river. As a matter of fact, all river basins are divided so as to have two electoral areas, one for net fishermen at the mouth of the river, and one for those above, the rod fishermen. Those above are supposed to be equally provided for in these boards of conservators. There are other persons, members of the boards of conservators, ex-officio members, the proprietors of certain fisheries, who might be said to throw in their weight with the rod fishermen. But, as a rule, the election of the boards, as it stands at present, is not on entirely too bad a basis. That is a question which we can thrash out more fully when a Bill dealing with that matter will come before the House in the autumn.
I was glad to hear tributes from all parts of the House paid to the work done by the Gárda Síochána in the matter of the protection of the inland fisheries. I myself have paid a tribute in previous years to the Gárda Síochána. I am very glad this year that I waited until I got that tribute from the House as a whole. Deputies from all Parties have paid that tribute to the Gárda. It is a well-deserved tribute. The boards of conservators report that they have got the most invaluable assistance from the Gárda Síochána. In very many barracks men are told off specially for this work. These are men who have specific knowledge of the subject. I think I have dealt with all the points raised.
