Appropriation Bill, 1931 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Connolly

I want to raise one or two points in connection with the Appropriation Bill. Last year on the Appropriation Bill I raised a question with regard to the Forestry Department, Vote No. 53. I called attention at that time to the continued export of round timber, that is, timber in the rough, and suggested that some steps ought to be taken to prevent its export. Timber in the round in Ireland is diminishing very quickly, and we are approaching a very real shortage of certain timbers that are very valuable in giving employment and supplying necessary commodities. I alluded then particularly to the export of ash, elm and sycamore. At the rate we are going in a very few years there will be none of these timbers left. That might not be so bad if these were providing real employment in this country, but the fact is that the best of the material is going out, and the labour involved does not amount to more than 16/- or 18/- per day. All this timber is used for the manufacture of commodities, the wage value alone of which would run to £5 or £6, according to the purpose for which the material is used. I would suggest that the Forestry Department ought to consider the advisability of putting an embargo on the export of all round timbers, and also that they should go into the question of the export of plank timber, that is, straight sawn timber, without any other work than sawing having been done on it.

Relevant to the same thing the question as to the planting of timbers suitable in the future for certain needs in this country should be considered. At the present time, I think, the main planting is being done in soft woods such as Douglas fir. It is argued, I think, by the Forestry Department that it is difficult to get suitable land for planting the slower growth timbers, such as oak, ash and elm, but I think we should take the long view about this, and try to secure territory for the planting of these. It is certain that in ten or twenty years we will have none of these timbers, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to get them. We shall not get the benefit of these slow-growing timbers in our time, but I think the future generation will condemn us unless we show some foresight about this matter.

The other item I want to bring forward is in connection with Vote 46. In all this I am really looking for information more than anything else. The Minister may be able to assure me that the matter has been already dealt with. If so, I shall be very glad to hear it. Away back in 1921 and 1922 certain Northern teachers were approached and appealed to that they should not recognise the Six-County Government. Acting on instructions received from the Provisional Government or the Free State Government, or both, they refused to recognise the Six-County Government, and during that period their salaries were paid by the administration here. These people took very considerable risk indeed in following that line of action. They were subject to dismissal, and there was also the possibility in many cases of losing their pension rights. The matter was afterwards adjusted by the Department of Finance, I presume. Whatever adjustment took place there was a deficiency, or there was owing to the teachers the amount of pension money retained out of the salaries that were paid to them by the administration here. I understand that money has never been paid. That was the last information I had about it. I would be glad to know if that amount has yet been paid. I understand the total amount would be about £10,000, but undoubtedly it is money which, if held here, is being held under false pretences, or, at all events, money that the administration here is not entitled to retain, as it was a direct deduction from their salaries for which they afterwards received no compensation. I say this matter may have been adjusted, but my last information was that it was not, and I would be glad to know how the situation stands.

These are the only two points I wish to bring up. Previously, I raised the question of beet and the subsidy that is being paid to the Beet Company. That matter, I understand, is now being adjusted. I think at the time the Minister for Finance repudiated any responsibility and refused to intervene. I, therefore, prefer to leave that aside for the negotiations that I understand are going on.

Mr. Comyn

Senator Connolly has spoken of the teachers in the Six Counties. I am sure what he said will receive full attention from the Minister, and that the claims of these teachers will be satisfied. I wish to speak on behalf of another class of teachers, namely, those who are called the transition period teachers, teachers who went on pension during the years from 1920 to 1925. I believe that originally there were about 1,000 of these. Of course, with the advance of years their number has been considerably diminished, but the grievances of those who survive have not been met, although they might be met without any great burden on the public funds. Even a little burden, if it secured justice, is in the end a great advantage.

In order that their cases might be understood, I would like to say that immediately before 1920 there was a considerable rise in the salaries of teachers. The miserable stipends which they had been receiving before that date were increased, in three instalments, to a reasonable sum. Some people may say that they are getting too much at present, but in 1920-21 there was a proposal for an increase in the salaries of teachers. That increase was to come about by one-third the first year, one-third the second year, and another one-third in the third year. So that it really would be four years when the ultimate increase of salary would be reached. In that period some of the teachers had to resign owing to having reached the age limit. The practice in Ireland before 1920 was this: when a teacher came to the age of 65, which was the limit, he was allowed a certain concession; he was kept in office until such time as he reached his maximum. It might be six months or twelve months, but an opportunity was given him of going out on pension on his maximum salary. That was a practice sanctioned by usage which had almost attained to the force of law. It was a practice to which there had been no exception taken.

In regard to these transition teachers what happened was this: Their salaries were, as I have said, increased in the first year by one-third of the amount by which it was proposed to increase them; in the second year by another one-third, and in the third year the full increase had taken place. Some teachers attained the age of 65 before the full increase was due. One or two whom I know attained to the age of 65 some months before they would have become entitled to their full increase. The practice here has been to give them no sort of extension of time, but to fix their pension on the salary which they were receiving on the date on which they attained the age of 65. No chance was given to them to remain in office until they reached the ultimate increase of salary to which they were entitled. The result of that practice has been that some of these transition teachers are now on pensions of one-third of the salary to which they would be entitled. Take one example of a teacher whose salary on 31st March, 1920, was £268. On 31st March, 1921, his salary was £296, on 31st March, 1922, £386, and on 31st March, 1923, he would have been entitled to £417 which with capitations would bring his salary up to £445. That would be the finance of the matter. If the teacher was allowed to remain in office until March, 1923, his salary would have been £445. According to the system which obtained before 1920 he would have been entitled to go out on a pension of £220, but what was done in that case was: before he became entitled to his last increase he had to go out and he got a pension based on the average of the three years preceding. The result is that his pension is now only £130. That is a great reduction and having regard to the position of the men who are in office as teachers it is I submit to the House a great injustice. It is a matter, I think, that ought to be remedied. These teachers were entitled to the same consideration as the teachers who are at present in office. It was they who won for the teachers the advantages which they now enjoy and as always happens to people who fight battles for others they have been the sufferers and they have been sufferers to a very great degree.

I do submit to the Minister for Finance that they are entitled to special consideration and I ask that he should go into their case. I am sure if he does he will find that these teachers are entitled to an increase in their pensions of at least fifty per cent. It is only bare justice that this should be done. It would cost very little and of course it will be a great advantage to a very deserving class of men, these teachers who have been pensioned and who have given long service to the State.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I hope what I am going to mention is not going to be a hardy annual. In connection with Vote 31 I desire to make the protest that no funds under this head seem to have been allocated towards the organisation of the game industry in this country. Some 50,000 licence holders in the past year have paid into the Exchequer very nearly £39,000. The figure is something like that. In the last eight years that must amount to close on £320,000. The whole of this money in previous years and this year has been kept by the Minister, not for his own purpose, but in order to utilise it for purposes other than the propagation and preservation of game in this country. Every other national asset has been worked up by every possible means, but here we have a potential income which might be got from this game industry. That income might be got for our people by the proper organisation of this industry, but owing to causes which arise from our particular agricultural circumstances that industry has been neglected. It has been stated—not argued in any way—that this is a matter entirely for private enterprise, that the small farmer should combine with the man next to him and organise for the protection of game on their lands. I do not think that that is possible. I do, however, think that this is the only form of national agricultural industry which has not been pushed along as it can be pushed.

It is hardly necessary to remind the House of the assistance that has been given to agriculture in the way of instruction, subsidies and propaganda. As a result it has been brought to a very high state of efficiency in recent years. Take the case of the inland fisheries, which provide the country with an income of £270,000 this year. Now that industry has the advantage of utilising the fishery rate and the licences paid for the purpose of the preservation of the fisheries. It has the advantage of utilising these things for increasing the stock of fish in the river. People concerned with game do not get this advantage. I think the actual amount of the fishing rates and licences amount to another £39,000. That is a very considerable sum, and I suggest that if development in one direction is necessary and is fruitful of results, it should be justified and desirable in another, and I think this principle should be applied to the game industry as well. To give an instance, up to last year Scotland used to get directly and indirectly £3,000,000 per annum from the letting of its various shootings. We at the moment are getting only 400 visitors, all told, who come to this country to shoot game on their own. I do not think they leave very much behind them as things are now, because they do not get good game when they come. We get very few wealthy people who are prepared to pay for shooting. It has always been the argument that our circumstances are different from Scotland. I admit it. Climatically and otherwise we are different. I want to make that clear, and I do not think we are any worse off for being a populated country instead of being a mountainy waste, as a great part of the Highlands are as a result of the Highland clearances.

What I do think is that we could get by a proper organisation such a quantity of game in this country as would attract a large number of people. There are to-day, owing to financial conditions elsewhere, not so many people who can afford to go to Scotland, but there are large numbers of people who would be prepared to come over here and take small shootings from such farmers as would preserve their lands. These people would be prepared to pay a very good rent for the game rights. I really think that this would mean a considerable increase in the income of the Irish farmers, not £3,000,000, but possibly £500,000, that is double what is derived from the inland fisheries, and it would mean a considerable increase in the national income. All this money would go into the pockets of the farmers who would be prepared to organise and preserve their lands.

To do all this we would require some organisation, and at the present time there is practically none. The Department of Justice deals with the Game Laws and sees that they are in working order. Since this was started we have had reports from the Gárda Síochána which show that they are interested in the matter of the preservation. The Land Commission disposes of the letting of any lands they have in their hands so far as shooting is concerned. They advertise the shooting. The Minister for Finance grabs the licence money and holds it for other purposes. There is no link whatever between those Departments directly and the farmers who are interested in game rights. I suggest, therefore, that it should be considered whether an association could not be got up whereby a branch of some Department would be empowered to take charge of these matters. Preferably it would be Lands and Fisheries, because they are always dealing with the fishery question, which is pretty much the same kind of question. That Department should be given the task of dealing with all matters connected with game. The Consultative Council suggested in last year's Game Act should be brought into being to advise the Department as to what steps should be taken. I think the Department of Fisheries has been distributing grants throughout the country through the Fishery Conservators, and some Department like that, not in its present form but in a reorganised form, should be given power to organise the different game associations or farmers' associations for the preservation of game. It is in that way that they could be organised.

These associations could be made responsible for the destruction of vermin. They should destroy the vermin. When these various bodies could show certificates for the amount of vermin destroyed, then we could go one step further and give them grants for the re-stocking of their lands, and publish schedules of associations of the various farmers who are prepared to hold their land for re-letting. I think there is an organisation on those lines in France. It works well. If started here, even in a small way, it would go a long way to solve the derating problem by means other than an unproductive subsidy.

On the Second Reading of the Finance Bill Senator O'Farrell and Senator Sir Walter Nugent gave us two very excellent examples of the vicious circle. Generally I maintain that assistance to industry for the production of articles which can be produced more cheaply elsewhere is not wise, for although they give employment to one section of our people they create a lot more unemployment elsewhere. That in turn reacts on agriculture. But if we stimulate an industry such as this which does not exist elsewhere in the same form there is no friction, there is no conflict and what is more there is no over-production. We will get a great deal more money in that way at less cost than could be got in any other way. I hope that during the coming year the Minister will consider whether in this way he could not help the country, help the national income, help the tourist season and make it longer. All this would help the farmers.

Mr. Farren

I would like to refer to an item in Vote 21. There is a grant-in-aid of £250 given to the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. I never got a satisfactory explanation as to why the State should pay a subsidy every year to one trade union, particularly a trade union composed of people who earn fairly decent salaries. Why should this grant be paid? I see that according to this year's Vote the amount has been reduced by £75. Is this reduction due to the decrease in the cost of living bonus, or how is it arrived at? I am quite serious about this. The amount of money involved is not tremendous, but it is really the principle to which I object. I object to a subsidy being given to this trade union, one of the finest trade unions in the world. Why should they be given a State subsidy to carry on the business of their trade union? They call it an Incorporated Law Society, or an Association, but it is, nevertheless, a trade union, and I cannot see why there should be any discrimination. Unless I get a satisfactory answer I will make an application that the trade union to which I belong should get a subsidy, because I believe we are doing just as good work for the community as this particular trade union.

Mr. Comyn

Surely the Senator would not follow a bad example?

Mr. Farren

I merely want fair play.

Cathaoirleach

Are you regretting the decrease, Senator?

Mr. Farren

I want to know on what basis the amount is fixed—whether it is on the cost of living bonus or not. In connection with Vote 40, I see there is a sum of £200,000 for housing purposes. I would like to know if that £200,000 is intended to cover the Housing Bill that I understand is to be introduced next autumn. In my opinion the sum of £200,000 is entirely too small, considering the problem that has to be confronted. That amount as a subsidy towards house building will not do any real work in the way of solving this tremendous problem. I would like to be assured by the Minister that the £200,000 is just a continuation of the last Housing Act finance and that it is not intended to cover the new measure the Minister for Local Government and Public Health mentioned would be introduced next autumn.

Mr. MacEllin

I am sorry the Minister for Agriculture is not here because there are a few items upon which I would like to have some information. I cannot understand why there should be State subsidies in regard to some creameries and no subsidies in regard to others. There is a Vote of £34,000 for the purchase of creameries in Clare. I am not sure that all that money is necessary.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

And to erect auxiliaries.

Mr. MacEllin

I am quite satisfied, having a fair experience of what it costs to erect creameries, that that enormous sum is not necessary. Knowing the record of Cleeves, I am inclined to believe that they have had more losses than ever during the last year or two and these losses are due to very keen competition against other creameries. I am inclined to think that, not alone will this money be devoted towards making up the losses, but it will be also utilised to help them to hold their butter in cold storage in order to make use of the tariff of four-pence. This is hitting the poorer creameries that are not able to afford this thing. I am anxious to know more about this Vote of £34,000 before we definitely pass it. This thing is very unfair to the poorer creameries that are struggling to maintain themselves in the present depressed conditions.

Another very important matter is the result of the operation of the Fresh Meat Act. I could not get any definite information in connection with the results accruing from this measure, but from what I hear I believe that the results are very startling, particularly in connection with the dreaded disease of tuberculosis. I understand that disease is very much more severe in the creamery districts than in other areas. I went to the trouble of finding out what was being done in connection with counteracting this disease in other countries. In Denmark they issued an order to pasteurise all separated milk before sending it back to the suppliers. After operating for twelve months the result was that there was a reduction of 50 per cent. in the cases affected by the disease. If so much can be achieved under a simple process of that sort, I think it is highly desirable to issue a similar order in this country. In Denmark, by pasteurising the separated milk, they reduced the number of animals suffering from tuberculosis by 50 per cent.

In the Free State we have 123,000 sows and 1,098,000 ordinary pigs. I am given to understand that there is a net loss of sixpence a pig as a result of tubercular disease. That would mean a total loss of about £25,000 in relation to pigs all over the country. Taking animals such as cattle and other livestock, and excepting sheep, the loss must be really very serious. If we can gain such a great advantage merely by pasteurising separated milk, very serious consideration should be immediately devoted to the matter.

Mrs. Wyse Power

Might I again call the Minister's attention to the steady annual increase in the amount required for industrial schools? There is an increase this year of £1,133. That amount may seem small, but the total is really enormous; it comes to very nearly £119,000 for the three institutions, Borstal, reformatory and industrial. The bulk of the money is for the industrial schools. Added to this you have two-thirds from the local authorities and that makes a really enormous total. Parents, when they can do so, give contributions to these schools. Probably the increase is due to poverty, but it is very extraordinary all the same. The Manager for the Corporation of Dublin, in his Budget this year, called attention to the fact that there was an increase of about £4,000—I think that was the figure. At all events, it must have been a very large sum when the manager thought fit to call attention to it. The Minister, when this matter was mentioned on another occasion, said that very often the people who run the industrial schools are not paid. We know one thing definitely, and that is that the State does not repudiate its debts to them; they pay 7s. 6d. per head. As far as I am aware, only one local authority in the midlands declared that they would have to decrease the allowance. I have no idea how many children are in these schools and we have no record of the number. We do know, however, that the amount of money required in connection with those schools is really enormous and it is time that some effort was made to reduce it.

Mr. Blythe

It is difficult to deal, without notice, with the various questions that may be raised on this Bill. As some of them affect other Departments I do not think I could attempt to deal with them. Senator Connolly raised a question about the export of round timber. I certainly should be very reluctant to place an embargo upon the export of any product. One could argue just as strongly for embargoes on other things that cannot be used here. The position is that persons own certain products. They are ready for sale—ripe as it were—and are we to say that these persons are not to sell them, or are we to say definitely that they must sell them at some knock-down price? That is what the case put up amounts to. Timber may not have to be cut in the way that grain has to be cut, within a very limited period. But when timber gets ripe it ought to be cut, and if it has to be kept for a substantial period beyond that it tends to deteriorate. If we were to put an embargo on the export of round timber it would mean that the people who had the timber would be forced to allow it to continue growing. The result would be that it would decrease in value. People ought to be allowed to cut the timber when it is ripe and when they need the money. It seems to me a serious thing to say that when the owners do cut that they should be obliged to sell in a market which is very much more limited than the supply, and therefore be obliged to take a smaller price than they might otherwise be able to obtain. As to the general questions raised with regard to afforestation, I am afraid I could not deal with them. There has been some forestry legislation before the Seanad, and I am sure that Senators have had opportunities of putting forward their views on that. If any Senator wishes to raise a question on that a motion can be put down, and the Minister for Agriculture will attend to deal with it.

Senator Connolly raised another question with regard to payments to national teachers. My view is that the first action taken with regard to the national teachers in the North should never have been taken; that once the Treaty was accepted no attempt ought to have been made to induce any people in the Six Counties to refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of the Six-County Government. I do not know myself any of the circumstances with regard to the decision that was taken to make certain suggestions to the teachers in the North. I think that action was taken largely on advice that came from the Six Counties. In my opinion that advice was foolish and mistaken. If some money was paid to the teachers of the North out of the Saorstát Exchequer, it was money that should not have been paid. It was money contributed by the taxpayers in the Free State, and should have been used only for Free State purposes.

Mr. Connolly

It is only right to say that that money was refunded, I believe?

Mr. Blythe

No, and there would be no justification for paying any more.

Mr. Johnson

The Minister was a member of the Government who authorised it?

Mr. Blythe

No. I know nothing about how the first step was taken.

Mr. Johnson

I am speaking of the authorisation for the payment of the money.

Mr. Blythe

It was done under peculiar circumstances—that if it were not given perhaps people would be left starving. It should not have been done. The Senator had an opportunity of raising it and he did not take it.

Mr. Johnson

I want to defend the Minister for Finance of the day from the condemnation that the Minister is now uttering.

Mr. Blythe

I am standing in a white sheet in connection with the matter. I have said that none of the things that took place in connection with it ought to have taken place.

Mr. Connolly

It was Governmental action?

Mr. Blythe

There was a good deal of confusion of mind, I am afraid, in connection with various incidental matters at the time. Senator Comyn asked about certain teachers who had reached the retiring age during what he called the transition period. I think that a stronger plea could be made for increasing the pensions of people who retired before the new scale came into operation at all. I am astonished that the Senator did not make that plea, because certainly their case is a harder case than the case of those who, if they did not get the full increase, at least got some increase in their pensions. I think it would be quite impossible at the present stage, in view of the effect which falling prices tend to have on the revenue, to contemplate increasing pensions which were given in the year 1925 or earlier. If these people are suffering now, then they are suffering less hardship than when the pensions were granted, because in the meantime there has been a fall in the price of commodities and a consequent increase in the value of money.

I would be glad if Senator The McGillycuddy developed in greater detail his proposal with regard to the preservation of game. On the face of it, it seems possible to make as strong an argument for the taking of some steps for the preservation of game as for the preservation of fisheries. I am afraid, however, that the administration of any scheme to deal with the matter would present many difficulties. I would like to correct the Senator on one point. He indicated that the money derived from game licences was retained for general Exchequer purposes. As a matter of fact, it is paid into the Local Taxation Account, and goes back to the local authorities. If we were to divert that money to meet the cost of some general scheme of game preservation it would mean the withholding of £39,000 or £40,000 a year from the local authorities. It strikes me as a matter worthy of consideration, and as the Senator seems to have given some attention to it, I think he ought to put his views in greater detail before the Department of Fisheries. With regard to the point raised by Senator Farren, the position as to the grant to the Incorporated Law Society is this: Prior to the passing of the Solicitors Act of 1898, a number of duties in connection with solicitors were discharged by an officer of the Supreme Court. These duties included the keeping of the Roll of solicitors and of seeing that solicitors guilty of malpractices had their faults brought before the court and were struck off the Roll.

This Act of 1898 transferred the duties to the Incorporated Law Society. It provided that a grant equal to two-thirds of the cost of discharging these duties should be paid to the Incorporated Law Society. Previous to that a similar arrangement had been made with regard to the English and Scotch Societies. The reason we have reduced the amount by £75 this year is simply because the cost of doing this particular work was found on examination of the accounts of the Incorporated Law Society to have fallen. I do not know how the Senator would support a case for a grant to his particular trade union. In any event, if he sends in an application we will promise to read it whether we take any further steps or not.

Mr. Farren

The Minister would treat it the same as the application for a grant for the destruction of Liberty Hall.

Mr. Blythe

We have done a little more in connection with it than that. The amount provided in the Estimates for housing is for activities carried on under existing legislation. There is no provision for anything that may be done under the Bill which it is hoped to have in the autumn. The matters to which Senator MacEllin referred are matters that I could not deal with personally in the absence of notice. I know that the provision made in connection with creameries in West Clare includes not merely the purchase of the central creamery which has been effected, but also the erection of quite a number of auxiliaries in an area in which heretofore creameries have not been established, and in which in fact the old system of home butter-making is going on. It is an area in which there are big milk supplies, where there ought to be creameries, and where there is none. It is an area in which substantial benefits should accrue to the farming community as the result of the establishment of creameries, in the way of better prices being obtained for creamery butter as compared with home-made butter. The provision is not merely for a central but for quite a number of auxiliaries. I am speaking from memory, as this matter only came indirectly before me, but there are to be quite a number of auxiliaries together with some trading capital.

I do not believe there is any intention to hold butter in cold store. The Senator is aware that if more than a limited quantity of butter is held in cold store, the possibility is that those who hold it will lose, because they will have the expense of cold storing it, and, in the winter there will be no possibility of getting more. The 4d. that the Senator mentioned— the amount of the tariff—can only be obtained if there is less put into cold store than is needed for winter consumption here.

With regard to the matter which Senator Mrs. Wyse Power raised, I got some figures after she had raised it on a previous occasion, but I am unfortunately not in a position to give any further information to-day as I have not got them here.

Mr. Dowdall

Before the question is put, I would like to inform the Minister of a slight inaccuracy in his statement with regard to creameries in West Clare. Co-operative creameries were established in West Clare over twenty years ago, and they had all to go into liquidation.

Cathaoirleach

That is a very good advertisement, Senator, for Clare.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 29 Jul 1931