Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Dec 1940

Vol. 81 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 58—Marine Service.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £28,845 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1941, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Muir-Sheirbhíse (Achtanna Loingis Cheannaíochta, 1894 go 1939, agus an tAcht Imeall Trágha, 1933 (Uimh. 12 de 1933)); chun íocaíocht áirithe Cúitimh, maraon le págh breise do mharaithe agus costas cóireála leighis; agus chun Deontaisí alos fearas áirithe cosanta do longa do sholáthar.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £28,845 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1941, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Marine Service (Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1939, and the Foreshore Act, 1933 (No. 12 of 1933); for certain payments of Compensation, including extra wages of seamen and the cost of medical treatment; and for Grants in respect of the provision of certain protective equipment for ships.

I think the sub-heads to which I ought to direct special attention in this Supplementary Estimate are sub-heads F and I. An additional sum of £1,900 is required for services in connection with wreck and salvage. The amount provided in the main estimate was £100, a provision that it was customary to make each year to enable the receiver of wrecks and customs officers to carry out certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and to incur expenses in providing storage, etc. When the property on wrecked vessels is handed over to owners or underwriters there is a claim for the payment of salaries and expenses incurred by the receiver, and where the property is not claimed it is sold for the benefit of the State and the proceeds brought into account in the Appropriations-in-Aid. Salvage awards in such cases have been charged to this sub-head.

Before the war it was found that a provision of only about £100 was adequate for the receiver's purpose, but the war at sea since September, 1939, has resulted in a large increase in the amount of valuable property recovered from the sea on the Irish coast. The amount actually paid out up to 30th September, 1940, was £252, but payments had not then been made in respect of a considerable number of cases which occurred during that period. We cannot make any dependable estimate of the amount likely to be required during the remainder of the financial year, but it is known that expenses totalling about £850 are due for payment in the immediate future, and in that situation it is proposed to ask the Dáil to provide the additional £1,900 to meet possible expenditure under that head for the full year.

With regard to sub-head G, Relief of Distressed Seamen, in most years the Department is called upon to provide the cost of repatriating on an average six Irish seamen who may be found in distress abroad. The sum hitherto involved has been small, and £25 was usually found sufficient. That sum was provided under that heading for the current year, but something in excess has been already expended, and there was the somewhat unusual case of the crew of the Luimneach, some of whom had been detained in Spain, and some in German-occupied France. A sum of about £150 for the repatriation of these men is anticipated, and it is considered that that supplementary sum should be provided within this sub-head.

Is anything being included for the relief of foreign sailors?

No, only for our own destitute seamen.

Is anything being done by the Government for the relief of foreign seamen?

I cannot answer that question. It arises really on the Vote for External Affairs. As a rule the consuls of the countries concerned would look after them but, as far as expenditure on our part is concerned, it would be a matter for the Department of External Affairs. The greater part of the additional amount required under this Supplementary Estimate arises under sub-head I, compensation for crews of ships registered in Éire, and for their dependents in respect of loss, injury or detention arising out of the war. The amount provided under this sub-head was a token sum of £10, but as has been indicated since it has been decided to place the crews of Irish registered ships on an equal footing in regard to compensation with the crews of British registered ships. We undertook, pending the introduction of an Irish compensation scheme, to provide compensation for war injuries, pensions, and loss of effects suffered by crews of Irish ships equivalent to that afforded by the British Government to seamen on British ships. We propose to introduce legislation shortly which will empower the Minister to make orders providing for a scheme of compensation.

Will the effect be retrospective?

We are anticipating legislation by providing specifically here in the Estimate for compensation in the cases of five ships of ours which have already been lost and the compensation scheme will be on the same lines as the British one.

Have any payments, been made in anticipation of that proposal?

We have, with Finance sanction, given some.

That will not interfere with compensation from the individual owners?

I do not know. At any rate, we are responsible, not the individual shipowners in these cases, just as the British Government has accepted responsibility for compensation in like cases. These are only ships lost due to war activities. That is not regarded as a normal risk. In addition to that we are providing, under sub-head II, a sum of £20,000 in respect of protection against mines. We desire that our ships should enjoy the same protection in that regard as is enjoyed by ships of belligerent nations.

Would the Minister give us particulars under sub-head II?

I would ask the Deputy not to press that. It is in order to place our ships in the same position as those of other nations.

If the Minister will say that it is not in the public interest to disclose that information, I will not press for it, but this is a kind of case for which there is no precedent. Before voting these moneys, I should like to know the names of the companies and to be assured that it is not their job to provide it out of their own funds, and also to make sure that we are not providing this money for a company paying a very high rate of interest to its shareholders.

I think it can be understood—it is not a matter about which there can be much argument— that it is in the interests of the seamen on these ships that these protective measures should be taken. War at sea is not a normal risk of a shipping company and, accordingly, since we want to have this done, we are not inclined to dispute the matter with the owners of these ships, particularly as elsewhere countries are bearing the cost of these protective measures.

Is there any reason why the Minister would not give this information to a Deputy, if he says it is not in the public interest to have it disclosed through the records? I know there are shipping companies trading with ships registered in Éire which are managed from outside sources, and the very fact that ships are registered in Éire is no proof that they are owned by a purely Irish company. The Minister knows that as well as I do. There is no precedent for this kind of compensation. Is the Minister prepared to give the information to a Deputy who is asked to vote this money?

I cannot give the Deputy any information in relation to any particular ship.

I have in mind the Irish Free State Lines. They are supposed to have a certain amount of Irish control and are flying the Irish colours but all their seamen are in the British Ministry scheme. I am anxious to know if it is to private shipping companies that this £20,000 is going.

Will the Minister say what companies are involved?

All these ships are on the Irish register, and it is felt that it is in the interests of the seamen and in the interest of maintaining transport services that this should be done.

There should not be any secrecy. This £20,000 of the people's money is going to be handed over now to shipping companies. While we can all understand the case for providing protection, we ought to know the names of the companies.

All these ships are on the Irish register.

I know that. What is the use of repeating a meaningless statement?

It is not meaningless.

What are the ships and the companies?

I cannot give the Deputy that information. Just as there are ships on the English register—as Deputy Davin knows—sailing into our ports with this protective apparatus, so there are ships on the Irish register nominally owned by companies here. There are others completely owned by companies here and engaged in essential transport services and we are putting them on the same basis as they would be if they had been on the British register. That is all. It is being done in the public interest, in the interest of the crews of the ships, and I cannot see that there could be any possible objection from a public point of view.

If it is suggested that the British Government have borne the cost of the protection put on ships that are registered in Great Britain, could the Minister say the number of companies involved in this proposal or the number of ships?

I cannot. We have simply decided, as a matter of policy, that this should be done in respect of the ships which are on our register and for the crews of which we happen to have, by reason of that fact, a particular responsibility. If we do not do this, or if we do not make provision for the Irish seamen, even the Irish seamen might refuse to sail under the Irish flag. It would be a natural thing for them to do. The only course then would be to allow even the limited number of ships we have sailing under the Irish flag to transfer to the British register.

All I am asking is this. We are being asked to vote £20,000 here. Does the Minister not know the number of ships likely to be involved? Did he not give some consideration to that when he was making up the Estimate? That is one point. Then, can he say the number of companies involved?

I cannot give that information, but I can give some information about the number of ships. It would be about 30. I do not wish to be too informative about that. The Deputy can understand why.

Can the Minister also say that the cost of equipping ships registered in Great Britain with this particular protective device has been borne by the British Government?

The ships I have in mind are directly under the control of the British Ministry of Shipping.

Then they are ships which are on the English register.

Has the Minister not complete control over the £20,000, to see that the expenditure is confined to ships under the control of the Irish Government?

Ships which are on our register are not under the control of the British Ministry of Shipping. This only applies to ships on our register, and those are under our control and they can only sail in or out of any port with our permission and upon our business.

This is a rather strange attitude for the Minister to take up. If he could say to the House that it is not in the public interest to give the information, we could understand that. We are discussing an Estimate to make provision for payment of compensation to commercial sources, and one would like to know who will receive that money, but the Minister has made no attempt to give the information, and, so far, he has not even made a case that it is not in the public interest to give it. This is a Vote for a sum of £20,000—if the House votes that sum with the explanation so far given— which is being passed to commercial sources who, I take it, are paying dividends to their shareholders out of the profits which they make from the trading or travelling public. Their rates have been increased, as the Minister knows, for this purpose, and they are supposed to provide for cases of this kind. Is that not so?

I know of no previous case, since this House was established, where the Minister came to the House and asked the House to vote £20,000 of the taxpayers' money without giving some information of a convincing nature. I think it is a scandalous case to put to the House. Is it contended by the Minister —if it is, he is wrong—that ships registered in Éire are owned by purely Irish companies? I say that is not a fact. There are companies with ships registered in Éire which are managed from offices outside this country. They are to receive some of this £20,000, apparently, if the House is foolish enough to vote it.

That is the point I am making, too.

I must say I find it hard to follow Deputy Davin's line of argument. So far as I can understand the position, it is that wherever ships are on the British register they are already being protected and paid for by the British Government.

The Minister is now asking that the ships which are not on the British register, but are on our register, should get the same protection from us. It seems to me, with all respect to Deputy Davin, that that is very reasonable. All we are being asked to do here is to vote a sum of £20,000 to safeguard the lives of these people, so far as it is possible to safeguard them. That means safeguarding the lives of men working on ships sailing under the Irish flag. Now, we would all probably like to get a good deal more information. I take it that the Minister has good reason for not giving the information. He said that his reason for refusing to give the information asked for by Deputy Davin was because, in the Minister's opinion, it would not be in the public interest to do so.

He did not say so then.

Mr. Morrissey

I cannot see any other reason why he should withhold the information. The net point is that we are being asked to pass £20,000 to give at least the same protection to ships on our register as is being given by the British Government to ships on their register.

The question of the desirability of affording this protection has not been raised at all. The Minister only tried to befog the issue—talking of offering objection to provide protection. The one thing that the Minister now knows is that he is providing this protection for 30 ships. He says these are ships which are on the Irish register. He knows who owns the ships on that register, and surely he ought to tell us what companies are going to get the £20,000 for this purpose. We have been told the number of ships affected, but we will not be told the names of the companies which are going to cash the State's cheque. What is the difficulty in giving us the information? Surely the Minister cannot plead the public interest in withholding information of that kind?

I do not know whether it is, or is not, advisable that too much information about this matter should be given to the public. The process, as we all know, is one that was devised elsewhere to meet a particular menace, a menace which cost the lives of Irish seamen. All we are being asked to do in regard to these Irish seamen, and what Deputy Davin is cavilling at us doing and Deputy Norton likewise——

That is not so.

That is a falsehood.

It is a lie, and the Minister knows it.

Order! The Minister should be allowed to finish his sentence.

——is to extend——

The Minister will not be allowed to make a statement of that kind. Tell the truth for once.

—— is to extend to our Irish seamen the same protection as British seamen enjoy, and to extend it to them upon the same terms as it has been extended by the British Government to their seamen. The British Government have made themselves responsible for the cost of these protective measures. By their courtesy, we are being permitted to utilise and apply these measures to our ships for the benefit and protection of our seamen. The Deputies, and Deputy Davin in particular, suggest that we should ask these ships which, as I have said, are sailing in and out of our ports, carrying our trade and produce, carrying the things we have to export and the things which we have to import: they are asking that we should adopt towards these ships and the crews on them, because you cannot divorce the crew from the ship in this matter, an attitude which is much less friendly, much less sympathetic and much less concerned for the lives of our seamen than the British Government have adopted towards their nationals. I am not prepared to do that.

The British Government control their ships.

I wonder if I had come in here and said: "I am going to extend this protection to ships which are owned by the railway company", would Deputy Davin have got up and talked then about ships being on the Irish register——

That is an insinuation that is worthy of the Minister.

Reference to a Deputy's personal calling or affairs should be avoided.

I have been challenged by the Deputy to tell——

You are misrepresenting me.

I have been told by the Deputy that, in order to safeguard the interests of the shareholders of these companies, I am going to do something for them which I ought not to do. As I indicated at the beginning, before the Deputy made his ridiculous speech, war at sea is not a normal risk. Every country is taking special steps to protect its citizens from these risks, and is asking its citizens to pay for them in the ordinary course of taxation. Why should I go to any one of the owners of these ships which at the moment are at sea, at the risk of their owners and at the peril of the lives of their crews, and ask them to do this work at their own expense, when the British Government have not asked their shipowners to do that? Is it not as vital for us that our ships should remain on the sea as it is for the British Government that their ships should remain at sea? Ought not the lives of our Irish sailors be as much a concern of ours as the lives of British seamen are of the British Government?

There is no need to labour that.

Why should Deputy Hickey and those who profess to speak for the workers——

I have more respect for our seamen than the Minister has, and he should not insinuate anything else.

Whether the Deputy has or has not, he knows as well as I do that our maritime resources are very limited.

The Minister should not insinuate that we are objecting to paying money for our seamen.

If the Deputy desires to intervene in the debate he should do so in an orderly, connected manner.

What else is the objection? Deputy Davin told us that the proposal is unjustified.

On a point of order. I asked the Minister to state, but he had not the guts to say that it was in the public interest.

That is not a point of order.

Would it not be more in the public interest if we had a little less excitement, and would not the sailors be safer if the Minister's excitement had shown itself in the last 15 months?

Ministerial blackguardism.

Deputy Mulcahy knows as well as I do what the issues in this matter are. As I have already indicated, we are able to avail of these protective devices, which are very jealously guarded, by the courtesy of another State. We do not want, and I certainly am not prepared, to go at any length into or to give any details in regard to this matter. We have satisfied ourselves that the £20,000 will instal this protective system on our ships and I am not going to enter into details in this House as to whether any particular ship is or is not fitted with this device, whether the ships of any particular company are or are not fitted with this device, or whether the ships which are on the Irish register are in more than nominal Irish ownership or not. I will only say that I would like to see as many ships as possible on our register flying the Irish flag, and I would like to see the crews on these ships sailing under as safe conditions as possible in the troubled world of to-day.

The Minister is a specialist in misrepresentation, as the reckless and irresponsible speech he has delivered shows. The purpose of the queries put from these benches was simply to ascertain what companies were going to get £20,000 worth of the people's money. The question of providing protection for those ships was not raised at all. Everyone is anxious, some of us much more anxious than the Government have shown themselves, to provide protection for Irish sailors who are travelling in Irish registered boats. The net point raised in this discussion is: who is going to get the £20,000? The Minister says he does not want to say what ships are fitted with this device. Is the Minister losing his memory or is he losing his senses? He has told us already that every ship on the Irish register is protected by this anti-magnetic mine device. Is the Irish shipping register not open for inspection and does not everybody know then what ships have this protection? The net point involved is: what companies are going to get the £20,000? No question was raised from these benches about the propriety of affording protection.

Oh, yes, there was. Deputy Davin definitely said——

That is a damned blackguardly statement.

Deputy Davin very definitely said that the company should be called upon to bear the cost of this themselves.

It is a damned blackguardly statement so far as I am concerned.

Deputy Davin has repudiated that statement, and I take it that, in accordance with well defined parliamentary practice, the Minister is obliged to accept that denial. The Minister is simply inventing statements in characteristic fashion and attributing them to people for the purpose of working himself up to an artificial heat over a matter which he wants to conceal. I do not think there is any reason why the public should not be told who is going to get the £20,000 provided in this Estimate. It is going to certain companies. Who are the companies? We are entitled to a statement from the Minister as to who will receive the money, and the Minister cannot make any plea of public interest for withholding information of that kind.

I wish to refer to matters which arise on sub-head F, dealing with wreck and salvage. For some time past, various commodities of one kind or another have been washed up on the north-west coast and have been salvaged by the small fishermen there, and handed over in due course to the authorities. Included in such salvage or wreckage were several hundred bales of what is known as raw cotton wool. I myself have seen this wool coming ashore at various points on the Donegal coast and the north-west coast generally and each bale weighs five cwts or more. The salvaging of such goods is not an easy matter; on the contrary, it is an extremely hazardous enterprise for those engaged in it because they have to transport such goods as bales of wool, barrels of oil, timber, and the like over long distances in very small craft. These fishermen and others engaged in this enterprise have complained to me time and time again of the delay in paying them their percentage of the amount realised from the sale of the salvaged goods, and others who have received payment have complained just as bitterly of the very small amount paid to them for the goods handed over to the Department. In that connection, I would say that if the percentage paid to these poor fishermen is any indication of the total amount realised from the sale of the goods, the prices received at the sale are scandalously low. My contention is that if valuable raw materials of this description are made available by the small fishermen and others engaged in this work, surely the Department can afford to pay them adequately for their trouble from the amounts received from the sales of these goods, unless, of course, it is the policy of the Department to dispose of such goods at very low prices. I should like the Minister to say how the sales of these salvaged goods take place, and on what basis the people who salvaged such goods received compensation.

Ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil mé ar aon intinn leis an Teachta Cormac O Breisleán faoi'n mbealach atá an Riaghaltas ag réidhteach agus ag íoc faoi na rudaí a thagas faoi thír. Nuair a tháinic na pacaí cadáis, agus go leor eile, isteach i mo cheanntar-sa, dubhairt mé leis na daoine iad a fhógairt do na Gárdaí agus go raibh mé cinnte go bhfaghadh siad luach saothair agus go bhfaghadh siad chuile cheart, ach ní mar sin a thárla. An chuid acu a híocadh, níor híocadh iad go ceann a hocht no a naoi de mhíosa, agus annsin ní bhfuair siad ach an déirc le hais na ndaoine nár fhógair iad chor ar bith, ach a dhíol iad le chuile dhuine as tír isteach a tháinic á gceannacht i gan fhios do na Gárdaí agus don Riaghaltas. Na daoine a fhógair na pacaí go dtí na Gárdaí, ní bhfuair siad ach ó choróinn agus punt go deich fichead, agus ní bhfuair siad é sin féin go ceann naoi mí ina dhiaidh sin—cuid acu nach bhfuil íoctha go fóill. Dá mbeadh na daoine ocrach ag fanacht leis seo, níl a fhios agam céard a dhéanfhadh siad. Deir siad go bhfaghann na ba bás fhaid agus bhíos an féar ag fás.

Anois, na daoine a dhíol iad gan é a innseacht do Ghárda ná d'Aire ná do dhuine ar bith eile fén Riaghaltas, fuair siad ó thrí phunt deich go dtí cheithre phunt ar spota na mbonn a dhíol siad iad. Feiceann an tAire leis seo go bhfuil sé fhéin agus a oifig agus a dhream ag cuidiú le droch-bhéas— ag cuidiú leis an bhfear nach bhfuil ag déanamh an ruda do réir na dlí. Ba cheart dó féachaint leis seo a stopadh agus cothrom a thabhairt do na daoine. Má dhéanann sé sin, déanfa na daoine a gcuid fhéin. Go leor de na daoine a fuair na rudaí seo amach faoi'n bhfairrge, chuaidh siad i gcontabhairt a mbáis i measc na maidhmeannaí agus a leithéide de áit. Níl sé chomh réidh na rudaí sin a thabhairt i dtír agus a cheapas daoine atá ina suidhe in oifigí annseo agus postaí móra acu. Tá súil agam go n-athróidh an tAire é seo, agus chuile rud a chur suas fá chandáil feasta, agus annsin beidh a fhios ag chuile dhuine cén luach a chuaidh sé.

In connection with Marine Service Supplementary Estimate under sub-head F, I am desirous to obtain some information from the Minister. My principal interest arises from the fact that, like Deputies Breslin and Mongan, I represent a maritime county, and complaints have been made in relation to the disposal of and payment for wreck salvaged in County Clare. In the months of April and May of the present year, over 100 bales of cotton were salvaged on the Clare coast. The major portion of that cotton was disposed of to a purchaser outside this country, and I presume that that was done because a better price was obtained outside the country than could be obtained within the country. I am anxious to know if the requirements of the country were actually met in the matter of cotton before its export was permitted. I know that there is a Receiver of Wreck, but I am anxious to learn from the Minister what his duties and powers are in connection with receiving and disposing of wreck. If wreck has come under his control, is the Receiver clothed with power to dispose of that property and conclude a sale without reference to any Ministerial Department of State, or was the appropriate Minister consulted in relation to the disposal of these bales of cotton from County Clare? If so, was every means made use of to ensure that the cotton was disposed of to the best advantage? Were offers invited from potential purchasers inside and outside this country and, if so, what were the respective tenders received?

As has been pointed out by Deputy Breslin and Deputy Mongan, the men engaged in this work have to display a high degree of skill and daring. Up to quite a recent date none of the men concerned was paid. I hope to learn from the Minister that they have been paid an adequate amount for what has been described as hazardous work. I should be glad to have some information from the Minister on this matter as it concerns many people. It is a matter about which some of us have been questioned time and again, and we are not in a position to give any information.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to deal specifically with the cases which have been mentioned by Deputies Breslin, O'Loghlen and Mongan. I cannot say that, in respect of goods which were salvaged in May last, people have not been paid up to now, nor am I in a position to refute the suggestion that they have been waiting for payment for six months, I understand that, so far as claims were outstanding in respect of cotton and other goods salvaged early this year, instructions have gone out to the Receiver of Wreck to make the necessary payments to those who actually recovered the salvage. In the light of what has been said here, I shall look into the matter. I gathered from Deputy Mongan that, in one case, the men who actually recovered the salvage received £1 5s., while the coast watchers, who are officials, received £4. There may be some rule for the distribution of salvage rewards.

Ní dubhairt mé a leithéide sin. Ní thuigeann tú mé. Go bhfóiridh Dia ar an nGaedhilge.

Deputy Mongan denies having made that statement.

I must have misunderstood the Deputy. I shall read what the Deputy did say. I understood the Deputy to say that the people who actually recovered the wreckage had to wait for the payments too long and that the payments were trifling. I understood him to say that they had been actually waiting for almost one year. As regards the points raised by Deputy O'Loghlen, I think the Receiver of Wreck is under an obligation to take all possible steps to secure that the wreckage is sold at the highest available price, in case claims are made against him, so that those who recovered the salvage would be entitled to the maximum reward. If the Deputy has reason to feel that there has been dissatisfaction in regard to this matter, I shall undertake to look into it and see to what extent we can obviate these delays in future. I recognise, quite frankly, that where men have, with some risk to themselves, recovered property from the sea, they expect to receive their reward in as short a time as possible.

Is not the Receiver of Wreck in the same position as a sheriff?

I presume he would be.

Vote put and agreed to.
Votes reported and agreed to.
Top
Share