The question I wanted to raise may be a little wide of the Vote, but I think it will be acknowledged as perhaps important enough to allow of a little latitude. It will not take more than a minute or two. It has been very widely circulated, and is, I think, a quite impossible story, that the present Army reorganisation scheme is based upon an agreement arrived at, at the British Imperial Conference, and was intended to secure that the Irish Army organisation should conform to some well-understood British Army plan. I think, in view of the fact that that story is being disseminated within the Army, and may be calculated to excite or give occasion for already discontented people to develop their discontent, there should be some definite repudiation of the story if it can be repudiated.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES—THE ARMY.
I would like at the very first moment to deny absolutely in toto that story which has been circulated. There is no truth in it. I repeat there is absolutely no truth in it, not a shred of truth, not a scintilla of truth. I make that statement in my capacity as President of the Executive Council. Not having been present at any but one meeting of the Imperial Conference, I am not in a position to say anything about what transpired there, unless what was intimated to me by the Minister for Education, the Minister for External Affairs, the Minister for Home Affairs, and, I think also, General Mulcahy, who was there at one time. But at no time during the whole of that period was there ever a question raised in connection with that matter. I am in a sense pleased that Deputy Johnson has raised it, because outside of an Irregular publication I have not either heard the story nor seen any reference to it. But I do say with perfect candour that it was never raised by the British Government. There was no question as to our quota or any interference with us.
I, too, should like to say that the question of the Irish Army, its strength, its commitments in any way, or its scheme of organisation, was never discussed in any way, either at the British Imperial Conference or with any British official or British Minister of any kind; nor did any British official or British Minister ask any question of any kind with regard either to our strength, our policy, or organisation.
As one of those who attended one portion of the Conference connected with my Department, I also wish to state that I never heard anything that could be construed in any possible way as having reference to the Army. What occurred when I was there was published. What I said was published, and that was the only communication I had with any Department while on the other side. I have not heard it from anybody, but, just like the President, I saw the Irregular publication in which it was stated that what I had to say, but refrained from saying in the Dáil, had reference to an agreement entered into by General Mulcahy while in England. All I can say here is, that is absolutely untrue. I never heard of any agreement being entered into, nor a hint of it from any quarter until I saw the Irregular publication.
I was at the Imperial Conference from the beginning to the end, and I have in my office a complete record of all that took place there. When I read the article in the Irregular paper I was gratified to see what a singular lack of information they possessed.
I think it is extraordinary that no action has been taken from time to time regarding Irregular propaganda such as the kind that has been referred to. The Publicity Department should make some effort to contradict such statements before they go too far.
That will have to arise on the Estimates of the Publicity Department.
My attitude towards that is qui s'excuse s'accuse.
Shall we get back to these Estimates, because I think the question of how the officers were selected for demobilisation was very fully dealt with this morning. I want to go into the question of the manner in which the demobilised officers are to be assisted. I agree entirely with the principle of compensation. I am prepared to vote £120,000 compensation to provide assistance for those demobilised officers, but I am in serious doubt as to whether giving them gratuities is the best either for themselves or for the State. I have certain experience of this. I saw a certain number of officers demobilised after the European War, and they received gratuities. Some received resettlement grants. In general that money was not well or wisely applied. You must remember that in this instance you are dealing with men who, as the Minister for Finance has said, were very young when they joined the Army. They are still in their early twenties, and they have not had experience in the handling of even such comparatively small sums as £150 or £200. If you put that money into their hands without guidance I am afraid it will not be of much assistance to them. Possibly here and there it may be of some assistance, but in many cases they will find that there are people with more experience and less scruples than themselves, who are anxious to obtain possession of that money. They will run the risk of being swindled out of a considerable portion of the money they have received, owing to what may be made to appear, to an inexperienced young officer, a desirable investment.
I do not believe it is a good thing for that reason to give them a lump sum of money, and from the point of view of the State, I think it is inadvisable, because when you give an officer his grant he will probably not be satisfied; he will think that as he has served five or six years and has run risks that other people did not run, he should get more than £150. There will be the danger that he will feel the State has done with him, and that the State has given him this lump sum to discharge its liability. He may turn his activities against what he considers to be an ungrateful country. I would sooner that the Minister for Finance would make some provision in the way of retired pay or a retaining fee for those officers, and let it be paid monthly or quarterly. That would be of assistance to them, and it would also be a hold on them in the sense that if their services were— God forbid—needed again, it would be known where they were, and they could be called back to the Colours. It would also be a retaining fee in the sense that they would still feel they had something to come from the State, and that the State was still concerned with them. Of course, there are the cases of men who might like to migrate, or perhaps settle in business, and some who might desire to buy a Ford car and use it for hackney purposes. In that case it might be reasonable to give a lump sum. As a general principle, however, it is sounder to give some form of pay or pension in cases where the State has an obligation; it probably would cost more in the long run, but it would be better for the country.
I am aware of the objections urged by Deputy Cooper in regard to gratuities. There are men who will not, perhaps, be able to make the best use of gratuities. There are a considerable number of officers who, in some cases at least, have made use of their gratuities to help to pay off certain debts that their people, who may be small farmers, had incurred on their behalf. The family might themselves help them in turn. This proposal that was put up from the Army is the most practicable means of giving some assistance to the officers going out. The question of providing some special system of training has also been under consideration, but a definite scheme has not yet been agreed to. I feel myself that in many cases it would be better to give them a course of training that would enable them to undertake some business outside rather than give them a lump sum of money. The question of retiring pay is a big one. There are many men going out who probably would not be suitable to be recalled to the Army as officers. They may be people deserving of a great deal of consideration, but they might not be at all suitable to be recalled to the Army as officers, and probably this pay and this retention of them in some sort of officer status may not be a desirable thing.
The Government is prepared to consider anything further that can be done for these men, or anything as an alternative to the present arrangement, in cases to which the present arrangement does not apply. The main fact is that after consultation with the late Minister for Defence, this was the proposal that came up, and it was agreed to. It has its faults, but I think it will be a great help to a very considerable number of officers, and it is the best that we could do in the circumstances.
As the Minister for Finance says, the proposal that is being discussed now was the best one to meet a certain set of circumstances that we could put up at the time. It must be remembered that there was a large number of officers retained in the Army who, from the Army point of view, were unnecessarily retained, but if officers had been demobilised at an earlier period, we would be in the position of demobilising men who could turn around and say, "Well, I have been active in such a way that it would not be safe for me to return to my own home district at the present moment," and we therefore had to delay demobilising officers. We retained officers in the Army unnecessarily. The Army problem was then to demobilise these officers and demobilise them in such a way that they would not simply be thrown out of the Army with no hope of sustenance of any kind immediately, and it was necessary to make provision, which was made generally for demobilised officers, to give them something like three months' demobilisation pay. In addition, it was felt that it was most desirable that men who had been absent from their ordinary avocations for a protracted number of years, men who had been engaged in pre-truce days, should be assisted in a special way, even at the present moment, to the extent of getting a larger amount of money placed at their disposal, than the ordinary three months' demobilisation pay would mean. We all realise, and I am sure the members of the Executive Council realise, simply because of their own circumstances and the general circumstances of the country, that they could not deal in a more effective or a more adequate way with the men who are being demobilised from the Army under present circumstances. I feel that the Minister for Finance would be prepared to agree that something further remains to be done on the part of the Government with regard to officers who had given certifiable pre-truce service to the country with a view to securing that these men are assisted in every possible way, and assured of being able to establish themselves in the life of the country that they had done so much to serve.
I am sure the Executive Council will be prepared to agree that a further investigation should be held of the claims of men who have given what I must call certifiable service, because there are many spurious claims which will be put forward. I trust that those genuine claims to which I refer will be investigated as soon as possible, not necessarily immediately, and that such men will be kept in mind by the Government in order to give them any help that the Government can give so that they may be enabled to re-establish themselves in the ordinary life of the country. The fact that they are getting now a small supplementary grant of any kind should not prejudice the men themselves or prejudice the attitude of mind of the Government in proposing to do anything further that they possibly can to meet these deserving cases.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I would like to press a point I raised earlier in the discussion on this matter, and that is to ask what steps have been taken with regard to seeing that the people who get these grants are those for whom they were intended. Deputy McGrath, in the course of the discussion, made what, to my mind, was a very serious complaint, to the effect that the grants were given in a more or less haphazard manner. The President, I think, told us that three officers were responsible for disbursing this money. What I want to know is, what steps were taken to inform officers about to be demobilised that such grants were available? Were they informed that these grants were available, and were they instructed as to how they should make application, and told of the opportunities that were to be given to those who had pre-Truce service? I want to know if they got an opportunity of submitting evidence of pre-truce service and so forth. I think it is most essential that that particular aspect of the case should be attended to. If the allegation made by Deputy McGrath is well founded, undoubtedly injustice is bound to be done, and, as I said earlier, the primary responsibility in this matter rests with the Minister for Finance. I would like to know what steps have been taken to see that these people were afforded every opportunity of making their case fully before whatever Committee is charged with the disbursement of the money.
I am not entirely convinced by the Minister's enthusiasm for the scheme. He has practically admitted that he is making the best of a bad job in accepting the scheme of the Army authorities. The scheme has been accepted, and I agree with General Mulcahy that some scheme was necessary. Since a scheme has been adopted of putting a lump sum of money into the hands of men who, as the Minister says, may not be suited to be officers in existing conditions and who may be illiterate, I do think that these men ought to be given some advice as to how they should spend that money; that they ought to have some Department of the State to which they can go for help and advice so as to save them from frittering away the money on bogus schemes. I would suggest to the President, who is now Minister for Defence, and to the Minister for Finance, that where you are demobilising a large number of officers you should have something akin to the Officers' Friend established by the British Ministry, which would give these men advice and help and offer them suggestions as to employment, pensions and other matters, and generally to give them a helping hand to start in civil life again. I do not say that that advice should be confined to officers of pre-truce experience. I think all officers should have the right to go to a Department of State such as I suggest should be established, which would give them advice and help. I know that there is a resettlement branch established under the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, but that may not be able to go far enough, and I think the officers in these cases have a special claim for consideration. I am not asking for an answer now, but I urge the President to take the matter into consideration.
I would like to correct Deputy O'Connell's statement that three officers disbursed the money. Three officers considered the cases and made recommendations, which in turn had to be approved by the then Minister, General Mulcahy. He made recommendations to the Executive Council how this money should be paid. I am not saying that, and the Executive Council does not say that, with a view to throwing upon General Mulcahy the onus of establishing a case for this particular method. That was his recommendation. I think few men in this country ever had the gigantic task that General Mulcahy had in connection with the Army. It absorbed more time than any other Department of the State, and I admit it was unreasonable to place the onus for dealing with this particular type of men, who gave good service to the State, upon him, but that was his recommendation, and we accepted it. We had no better method of dealing with it. Perhaps it was our duty to consider a better method, but having regard to the large number of officers concerned, to the necessity of doing something immediately, and to the fact that a good many other problems were engaging our attention at the time, that may be the excuse or explanation of our not having given this matter graver, fuller and much more attention. But I would not like the House to consider that we were throwing upon General Mulcahy the onus of establishing a case for this. If better methods of dealing with these cases are placed before us, we will be very pleased to consider them. We have, however, set up one particular branch of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce to deal with the case of demobilised officers and men. I do not know whether there is any information given there as to rights under the Pensions Act or anything of that sort, but it is one Department of State anyhow that does consider applications for employment. And with regard to that, I should say that, although the number which has been placed is relatively small, it is nevertheless a considerable number. We have, I think, something like 800 recruits now in the Civic Guard Depôt, and I think 600 of these are from the Army. We have had examinations, certainly one, possibly two, for appointments to Customs and Excise. In other Departments the same attention has been given to appointing men who have Army service. If it were not that we were faced at the same time with setting up Government machinery, introducing legislation and so on, it would have been a much easier task to have dealt with this thing, but, with all the other problems that had to be considered, it may not have got that place that it ought to have got. We are prepared to give fair consideration to any further reasonable demands that are put before us with regard to these people, but I do say in all sincerity that the whole position of the finances of the country ought to be considered with regard to them, not that we wish to do anything niggardly, but that the general needs of the country should also receive some consideration from us, even in settling a matter of this sort. I should also say that forms of application were sent with notification of demobilisation to the officers concerned, except in the cases of men demobilised on the 7th March.
Perhaps I ought to say, arising out of the point made by Deputy O'Connell, that up to Christmas last 750 officers with pre-truce service who were demobilised got forms to fill up. They gave references as to their pre-truce service, and reference was made to these in assessing the grants. You cannot assess grants of this particular kind by a regular rule of thumb. Certain heads and markings were arranged so that when a grant was considered on the general statement of claim put in by any applicant for a grant it could be referred to a particular type of formula to see whether the man concerned came under that standard formula as set down. Between Christmas and the demobilisation on the 7th March about 200 other officers were demobilised. Pre-truce officers of that particular lot got their forms also. The demobilisations on the 7th March numbered, approximately, 940. This demobilisation arose out of a conference lasting something like eleven days. The various officers in the country got full notice of that, perhaps two or three weeks before. That gave an opportunity for sizing up the relative merits of the officers they wished to retain and the officers they wished to demobilise.
We considered it desirable to wind up all matters in connection with the demobilisation of officers before the end of the financial year, and on the Committee that dealt with demobilisations an officer from each particular command was represented. He took his own men on the demobilisation list and indicated as far as he could readily do so the pre-truce men. It made certain recommendations with regard to the grants for these particular men.
When the recommendations that could readily be made in the case of pre-truce men on that demobilisation list were completed for every Command, the officers who dealt with the demobilisations and nominations—that is, the G.O.C's, the Chief of Staff, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General. and myself—took each particular recommendation and came to a decision. The decision was not actually final; it was that we would make in schedule form recommendations in respect of a certain number of officers, which probably went up to about three hundred men, who we knew definitely were pre-truce men, whom the G.O.C's had personal knowledge of. That left on the demobilisation list pre-truce officers in respect of whom no recommendation was then being made, and the intention was that those officers would be sent out the usual form of application for a grant, so that they would be given an opportunity for making application, and that their application could be dealt with in the ordinary way. It was proposed that approximately 300 or so would be dealt with in the way I have indicated. Actually, those recommendations had not been submitted from the Defence Department by the time the recent changes came about. I do not know whether they are yet in the hands of the Minister for Finance, or whoever is dealing with them, but it would explain why certain officers with pre-Truce service had not got a form of application—because we were dealing with as many of them as we could in that straight-off method when we had machinery there that was as effective, and perhaps more effective than the ordinary machinery we had been dealing with.
In view of what Deputy Mulcahy has said, may I ask for an explanation of the phrase "gratuities payable on demobilisation to certain officers with prolonged (including pre-Truce) service." One might think from this that "including pre-Truce," was to show that they were not excluded. I rather gather now that these gratuities are for pre-Truce service officers only. Is that correct?
That is correct. The prolonged service must include pre-Truce service.
Can Deputy Mulcahy say how many of those officers are likely to come into the category? There are 300 already to be given notice, but there are some others who are, as he says, dealt with in a straight-off manner. How many will he have altogether?
I am afraid I cannot risk hitting a figure. I think it would be unreasonable to give a figure, but the whole lot would not certainly go above 800.
1,500 is the figure I have got.
I want to ask one question. I do not know whether I should ask the present Minister for Defence or the ex-Minister for Defence. With regard to the matter of gratuities, I have heard one or two complaints from demobilised officers that they did not get their gratuities at the time of demobilisation. I know of one case: the man has been demobilised for two or three months. He came to me recently. I do not know why he called on me, except that I am representing his constituency. He had not got a gratuity at that date. I think it is possibly due to some defect in the machinery for payment, but these matters should not be allowed to happen. I would like to know if measures are being taken to avoid delays of that kind.
It is quite reasonable to expect that there would be a delay where a man has to establish a claim to service over a particular period, and establish a claim even to service of a particular type in order that he may get full justice The persons whom he gives as references have to be referred to.
I think Deputy Mulcahy misunderstands me. I did not refer to the gratuity for pre-Truce service. I referred to the ordinary gratuity for service in the National Army.
Three months' pay.
Yes.
It does not arise here, really.
I move:—
"That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,265, be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Fisheries, and to provide for the administration of schemes in connection with rural industries in congested districts."
I may say that this vote is like the vote in connection with the Land Commission. It is a re-vote of moneys already granted by the Dáil under another heading, but which it is necessary to vote again, because of the legislation which abolished the Congested Districts Board and prevented moneys which were voted to the Congested Districts Board for fishery development and for rural industries being drawn from the Exchequer.
I would like a little more explanation about this, particularly under sub-head (D1), £34,000. I cannot find that there was anything particular in the Congested Districts Board about fishery development.
Was this £34,000 for the administration of schemes for the development of sea and inland fisheries, dredging, grants to Boards of Conservators, and so on? That surely could not have been a Congested Districts Board Vote. The Congested Districts Board had nothing to do with Boards of Conservators. The Boards of Conservators have always dealt with the Department. It is a remarkable increase. We have an increase from £3,000 in the original estimate for fishery development to £37,000. Does that indicate a change of policy? At least we might know how much of this money is to go for dredging, how much for the development of sea and inland fisheries, and how much for grants to Boards of Conservators. I think it should have been shown under the various heads, instead of having the whole thing lumped together. It is desirable to have some distinction made between sea and inland fisheries. I think the Minister should give us some enlightenment.
I would like to ask where a large addition is made to a Vote indicating an extension, and the Minister concerned is in his place, whether we could not have an explanation from the Minister responsible after the Vote is moved by the Minister for Finance, in order that the matter might be put in a clearer form before the Dáil.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Do I understand from the Minister for Finance that no new money is being voted in this?
No.
Would the Minister show us where the saving is effected in the Estimates before us? Does it appear under other heads—the Land Commission, for example?
The Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture. The present Ministry of Fisheries is really doing work that was done by the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture and by the Congested Districts Board. The Congested Districts Board has been abolished by the Land Act. The money that it had available for fisheries and also for rural industries, which the Ministry of Fisheries has taken on, was not drawn from the Exchequer. This is the amount of money that would be available under other Votes if it had not been for the legislation which abolished the Congested Districts Board and prevented the money being drawn.
Does it appear under L1, page 17, in these Estimates for example?
Under the Congested Districts Board we have already taken credit for a total sum of £194,000 for the Land Commission. The total vote for the Congested Districts Board was £169,000. You have stated that £194,000 for the Land Commission comes out of the Congested Districts Board, and now we are being asked to accept the fact that a further £23,000 is coming out of it. The Minister for Finance must be more than a Minister. He must be a wizard, if he can do these things.
at this stage took the Chair.
The Department of Fisheries, as such, is a separate Department and, as a separate Ministry, has now been in existence for something like 16 months. It was established, presumably, for the purpose of fishery development, and all matters that appertain to fishery development were taken over under the new Department, even though, up to then, they had appertained to other Departments. The fishery cruiser was being looked after by the new Ministry. It would seem to follow in regard to these two items, D1 and D2 —I leave out D3, because one can clearly follow the change there—that moneys granted a year ago for fishery development and for the fishery cruiser were moneys voted to this new Department that had been created. How, then, is it possible to say now that these moneys for these specific purposes, which were being tended by a separate Ministry were, in fact, not the Vote of that Ministry but of some other Department? Only now, sixteen months after that Ministry or Department has been created, do these moneys come over for the original purpose for which they were intended. If these two sums under D1 and D2— £34,425—for fishery development, and an additional £3,000 for the fishery cruiser, were voted previously under the Congested Districts Board for fishery purposes, then the Fishery Department for the past twelve months has not been tending the whole of fishery work. Further, it would be interesting to have the exact location of the sums from which these transfers are now being made.
The full supplementary vote for the Land Commission was £234,000. We took credit there for a saving of £40,000 under several subheads, and it seems to me that that £40,000 probably included these sums which are now being put forward to be voted under a new heading. That is the point I wanted to submit to the Minister for Finance.
On page 18 it is estimated that a sum of £33,000 approximately may be regarded as attributable to Fisheries and Rural Industries. I suppose if that is the figure this £33,000 comes out of the Congested Districts Board and goes into the Ministry of Fisheries. All the discussions that have taken place as to the need of the Ministry of Fisheries were based on the conclusion that the expenditure was small— £34,000. Now it is raised to £51,840, which certainly does inflate the importance of the Ministry of Fisheries. Whether the additional duties that have fallen upon the Ministry of Fisheries, through the allocation of the duties of the Congested Districts Board to the Ministry, are going to be economically discharged under the new arrangement, is a question we will have to go into at a later date. I take it from these figures that we may estimate the expenditure by the Ministry of Fisheries at £58,000, including the Congested Districts Board.
As regards the point raised by Deputy Thrift, in addition to the money voted to the Congested Districts Board—£169,750—the Congested Districts Board had also an income of over £41,000 from the Church Temporality Fund—that is, interest on money invested.
I would like to ask the Minister for Fisheries what money is spent on inland fisheries, and where it is spent. There are some of the most celebrated lakes in the country, like Loch Oule and Loch Ennel in the Co. Westmeath, and I am not aware that there is any money spent on either the rivers, or lakes, or preservation of fish, in that county. If there is money spent there, I am not aware of it.
With regard to the origin of these sums, I would like to have an answer from the Minister quite clearly. I have before me the Estimates for Public Services for the current year, to which these Votes are supplemental. We have a definite Vote for Fishery Development, and a grant in aid for a Fishery Cruiser. Let me stick to the first— Fishery Development—as being the illustration. A certain sum was voted to the new Department for Fishery Development. Now that is extended; it is enlarged. Certain additional moneys come in. Are we to understand that these additional moneys that come in are not the moneys that were voted on a previous occasion to some other Department—to the Congested Districts Board—to be used for fishery purposes? Are they moneys that were the revenue of the Congested Districts Board which, with the disappearance of the Congested Districts Board, fell back again into the Central Fund?
There is no increase in the money available for fisheries. The money that is being voted now is money that was available either as a result of a Vote to the Congested Districts Board or of an income that the Congested Districts Board had from their endowments.
Will the Minister turn his attention to page 18 of these supplemental estimates—the Vote for the Land Commission. There he will see out of a total sum for Development Grant and the Congested Districts Board, £33,000 approximately may be regarded as attributable to Fisheries and Rural Industries, services which now have to be financed from other Votes.
Now we find that our additional estimate here is not £33,000 but £51,000. There are £34,000 for fisheries development; £3,000 for the cruiser, and £14,000 for rural industries. I take it the discrepancy is due to the income of the C.D. Board. Should not that be put down in the Estimates? Ought not there be a foot-note? Foot-notes are often the most interesting part of these Estimates. There should be some indication of that money, otherwise it is impossible for us to understand the Estimates. We have not the advantage of official knowledge that the Minister has. We have to puzzle those matters out as best we can. To begin with, there is no indication that it is a re-vote at all. It is not fair to place us in the position of coming here and finding the whole situation entirely different to what we had imagined.
I agree that this system of various Boards and Departments having income available from endowment is most unsatisfactory and confusing. My idea is that though in some cases legislation may be necessary, these various endowments should come into the Exchequer, and whatever money is required for ordinary services should be voted out each year by the Dáil. There was a reason for the existing system in the past. Sometimes money was voted for a particular service in England, and funds were created in Ireland to ensure that an equivalent amount would be paid. There is no reason for it now and the intention is to do away with it as soon as possible.
On that point, apart from later discussion that may be necessary, can the Minister for Fisheries, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, tell us what was the total sum available for administration by his Department, say, for this current year, and how that has been spent? What proportion of the total sum is spent in salaries and what proportion is spent in other works? If we had that information it would perhaps help us in the discussion of D (1)—that is, fishery development. We would perhaps be saved the task of asking how much of that £34,000 is for administration or salaries in connection with administration. How much money is spent on works or schemes of assistance? Perhaps if the Minister will give us a general survey of his work from that side it would shorten the discussion eventually.
If the Minister would give us at the same time some indication of what these rural industries mean, and what the £14,000 is going for, it would be very desirable.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I suggest that we should keep on to fishery development.
I would like to ask the Minister for Fisheries what is the intention of his Department with regard to fishing rights which have been taken over by the Land Commission under the 1923 Act? The fishing rights have been taken and there is no indication of what will now be done in regard to them.
We are not dealing with that particular subject now.
Are we not dealing with the subject of fisheries?
The question of policy does not arise.
Does the Minister intend to give loans or grants for the development of deep sea fisheries? In the present state of things along the coast line, the fishermen are in very poor circumstances and they are almost starving.
I would like to refer to the decision that a question of policy does not arise. I suggest the question of policy very peculiarly arises because the re-voting of moneys, and thereby the enlargement of the original Vote, does raise very acutely the question of policy of the Minister for Fisheries, the manner in which the Ministry is at present being conducted and what it purposes to do with these moneys. Before any discussion could arise on these heads, a statement from the Minister might be desirable.
I am prepared to make a statement covering the whole matter. The estimate submitted to the Dáil at the beginning of this financial year amounted to £28,575. There was a foot-note to that estimate which I succeeded in getting in after a certain amount of difficulty. I saw that the estimate appeared wrong. It was explained in that footnote that in addition to the sum mentioned there were moneys available for fishery development out of the C.D.B. funds and out of the statutory endowment of the D.A.T.I. We estimated at the time that the amount available from these sources was something like £42,650.
Is that additional?
Yes, in addition to the £28,575. It was thought, as these sums were payable under statute, it was better for the time being to let them go into the accounts of the Departments concerned and merely let it be a book-keeping matter between them and the newly-established Ministry of Fisheries. That was more or less queered by the abolition of the C.D.B. Deputy Hewat is desirous of knowing something about rural industries.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Would it not be better first to deal with D (1)—Fishery Development—as we are on the subject of fishery development?
Very well, take that estimate of £34,425. That is the chief item in the estimate. Under that sub-heading—that is one of the things that has been chiefly raised— provision is made for the granting of loans, £10,650; for fishery transit and subsidies, £4,500; for grants to the Board of Conservators there is a sum of £5,700. That will answer Deputy Shaw to a certain extent. That is where the Inland Fishery money is spent. There is a little more from the point of view of hatchery subsidies at Lismore. The insurance on fishing vessels is £4,900. The insured property is valued roughly for about £150,000. Then there are instructions in boat building, marine motor driving, fishing gear, dredging harbours, and so forth. That covers practically every item of that £34,425. There are at the moment heavy arrears due by the fishermen for loans granted them for the purchase of boats in what might be called the boom years. For the last two or three years many of those boats have remained idle owing to the depressed state of the industry generally, and, therefore, the instalments have not been paid.
Will the Minister give the figures for these?
The actual arrears are between £30,000 and £40,000. The outstanding loans are about £140,000. Of that sum £100,000 is not in arrear.
Are they long-running loans?
They are spread out over a number of years. I should say about ten years, with annual instalments. Now, in certain cases of these loans we found that the boats were being neglected. They were let go, the engines were being neglected, and so on. We exercised our powers as mortgagees, and took over the boats. This rather refers to the bigger loans. The smaller loans for £50, for gear, have, as a rule, been very well met. These are very important, because they help the very poorest of our people—that is, the half-farmer and the half-fisherman —to eke out a livelihood on his little holding, and I have hopes very soon of a definite promise from the Minister for Finance that these will again be available in the very near future—that is, for the provision of gear for these small fishermen. There is another type of fisherman also for whom I hope that these loans will very soon be released. That is, the owner of the yawl, a comparatively larger sized boat. Sail and motor-boat owners, during these bad years, used up their gear in a rather depressing task. They have now no money to refit their boats. These boats could, I believe, make a profit if equipped for going towards the fishing grounds. I hope the loans will be released to enable these men to refit those boats with gear. I refer now to transit. We are subsidising steamers in Arran and Galway, and a steamer to Erris, at a cost of about £1,600; that is provided for in the estimate. There is also involved in that estimate a scheme of ours which last year resulted in a nett loss to the Ministry of £2,000. That was to provide transit from Baltimore to Wales when the railways were broken up at the time of the spring mackerel season. Now, I mentioned insurance. Provision is made for giving assistance to fishermen to meet the cost of insurance of motors in the Saorstát. Large loans had been granted from £1,000 to £3,000 to provide boats in the past. There was a rule that some personal security should be had, and really that was of very little account, and the only security the Department had was the boat itself. Therefore the Department had to see that the boats were insured, and the usual system was to pay half the amount of the insurance premium.
To whom did the Minister pay that money?
It was to a company in the North of England. This thing was inherited from the Congested Districts Board, and from the D.A.T.I. There was a particular scheme of a certain mutual company formed to provide specially for fishing boats. The old Department insured with them, and we, of course, continued it.
Was it a fixed rate or a call on each boat?
It was a very peculiar arrangement. The rate was fixed in accordance with the number of boats that were wrecked, and the number of claims that were on the company during the year. It was on these that the rates were fixed.
I think that is quite clear. It was a call on each boat, on the tonnage.
Quite so. This amount of £5,735 for inland fisheries was principally in the form of grants to Boards of Conservators, for assistance to hatcheries. In reference to that, Deputy Shaw asks what are we doing to protect them. That is what we are doing. It is not our function to provide bailiffs as the law now stands. I do not say that the present arrangement is ideal, but as the law now stands it is not our function primarily. It is the function of the Boards of Conservators to preserve the inland fisheries and appoint bailiffs to do that work. We make them certain grants. I hoped to make the grant this year considerably more, but I was unable to do so because of the financial situation, but we give them about £2,000 more than they had been getting prior to this estimate, and we give them something more in that sense than probably ever before, at least under the old regime. There never was such concentration by the police force on fishery protection as there was last year by the Civic Guard. In speaking on these estimates, it is only fair for me to pay a tribute to what the Civic Guard has done in connection with fisheries. I am now referring to the protection of the inland fisheries. Various schemes carried out by the Ministry have also been provided for in this estimate. They include the dredging of harbours, the improvement and repair of landing places, which cost this year £3,000, providing instruction on boat-building, marine motor driving, fish curing, and kindred vocations, and the management of a salmon river in. Tirconaill costing £1,000. A good deal of the expenditure arose from appropriations in aid and is partly repayable. It is anticipated, as will be seen under heading No. 4, that we expect to get back £6,810 from receipts from schemes of fishery development. Now, when we come to the "Helga," now called the "Muirchu," there was an additional sum of £8,000 required to improve that vessel. Last year the estimate we put in was £5,800. We knew it was going to cost that, but at any rate the Dáil voted £6,000.
Sub-head D is not under discussion yet.
I was asked to make a general statement.
I think it would be a good thing if the Minister would make a statement covering the whole ground and then we could deal with the different items of his Department.
Does the Minister suggest that the Dáil declined to vote the amount he asked for?
No; but at any rate it was cut down to £6,000.
Not by the Dáil.
There was an arrangement made by which £2,500 would be found out of some saving on another heading for the Department.
Did the Minister present to the Dáil an estimate which the Dáil refused to grant?
Of course I am not presenting anything to the Dáil from the point of view of a money vote.
Are we to understand from the Minister that he requested the Dáil to vote a sum of money which the Dáil refused, or does he want rather to say that the Minister for Finance, to whom he submitted an estimate for £8,000, reduced that estimate to £6,000?
Well, that is the exact position. The increase, therefore, in the sum which I originally asked for is only £500, and that is due to the rather unexpected heavy cost of overhauling the steamer.
That was no surprise to anyone who knew anything about it.
Deputy Hewat asked me about the rural industry schemes. These schemes involve the employment of 67 teachers and assistant teachers at 47 centres, as well as the cost of maintaining premises at these centres. The Vote also provided for the purchase of raw material, wool, silk, thread, etc., to the value of £7,300, of which it is anticipated that £6,500 would be repaid to the Vote on the sales to the workers. I have not legally taken over this particular branch of the functions of the Congested Districts Board yet; I am only handling it pending the passing of the Ministries and Secretaries Bill, but that will fairly well explain the expenditure of the money. Now with regard to questions asked by several Deputies. Deputy Johnson asked for the proportion of salaries to the amount spent, upon development. Of course the question of salaries does not arise at all on this occasion on this estimate. The figures, as far as I have been able to remember them, are about £21,000 for salaries. But that question is entirely outside what we are now dealing with. They are provided for in the proper estimate, whereas this is a supplementary estimate.
Are they provided under the estimates for the Ministry of Fisheries at all?
This is a supplementary estimate to the estimate passed at the beginning of the current year.
This sets out the original estimate of £28,000.
I would like to ask permission to develop a little further the point I made a little while ago. I think it comes under the policy of the Ministry of Fisheries.
It may come under the policy of the Ministry of Fisheries but it does not arise on this supplementary estimate and we cannot debate it here.
It will come under the future policy of the Ministry.
Yes, but we cannot deal with it here. Any question of policy that does not arise out of the items mentioned in the supplementary estimate would be out of order.
I would like to ask for some information upon the question of loans. The Minister told us that there was £140,000 outstanding and £30,000 or £40,000 in arrear, and then he is making provision this year for a loan of £10,000 and he hopes to be able to renew the process of giving these loans in the future. Does he mean that he hopes to increase the Vote to the extent of so many more thousands a year in loans?
Loans are generally repaid.
I am saying that I am quite satisfied the Minister does administer, but the sums under this Vote are more important than I realised last year, because in my election time I talked of £27,000 for the Ministry of Fisheries and £21,000 for salaries. I now find that the salaries are £28,000 and that the Ministry is £51,000. I should like to ask having regard to responsibilities that the Minister has taken over, such as various Departments of the Congested Board, does he mean that he must have a greater staff or is the staff of the Ministry of Fisheries adequate? With regard to insurance, as far as I can gather, while the Irish Government are putting £4,000 or £5,000 a year into insurance they are getting no benefit, because the industry is in such a depressed condition that casualties to the boats are nil. The boats are not working, but the English boats are working and meet with accidents and £4,900 is paid a year for insurance. That applies to England where they make the claims and we are called upon to pay the money because our boats are idle. Of course, I think it is a proper thing to insure them, but we seem to have got the wrong end of the stick.
Mr. O'CONNELL
On this question of loans raised by Deputy Wilson, I took it that he was pressing the point that no further loans should be given.
No, I only wanted to know the policy of the Minister upon that point. I did not ask him not to give loans, I only wanted to know what he is going to do.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I rather gathered from Deputy Wilson that he was uneasy about the loans; which reminded me of the story in the Bible of the man who, when he was forgiven his own debt, went out immediately and collared the other who owed him something. If there is one thing more than another we hear repeatedly from the farmer these days, it is about arrears, but when this question in connection with arrears of fisheries arises the last people who ought to be hard in exacting payment are the farmers. Now, the Minister told us that, especially in the case of small loans, they were fairly well paid. I should like to make a plea on behalf of the fishermen to whom loans were granted, that every consideration should be shown to them in the matter of paying these arrears. The Minister knows, and we all know, that for the past two years or so there has been practically nothing doing in fishery matters, and consideration should be shown to those who have outstanding loans, and every chance ought to be given to them to pay back without undue pressure from the Ministry. Now, in the matter of giving loans, the Minister expressed the hope he would soon be in a position to make loans again. I hope that will be at the earliest possible opportunity. I am informed this year that the prospects of the fishing are hopeful, and that it is essential, seeing that this industry is a seasonal industry very largely, that the fishermen should be put in a position to avail of whatever chances and prospects offer in good time, and I do hope, therefore, there will be no further delay in the men getting these loans when they are available. If they are to be available, they should indeed be made available immediately. The Minister referred to the subsidy that was being paid to the Arran-Galway steamer.
£1,100.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I would like to know whether the Minister is going to give any further consideration to the suggestions made from time to time on behalf of the Arran people, especially the fishing people, with regard to the institution of a new route between Arran and the mainland. The present Arran-Galway route is over thirty miles, I think. There is an alternative route where the sea journey is something about nine miles from the land, and if the subsidy available for the Arran-Galway steamer were used in an alternative route I think it would be a very much greater benefit to the fishermen, and would afford many advantages to the fishermen for disposing of their fish which the present route does not offer. It would mean that the Arran fishermen could land their catches at Coshla Bay after the night's fishing, whereas at present they lose a day or two days in the week in going to Galway with their fish. There have been many complaints that the present Arran-Galway steamer service is not at all satisfactory. I would like to know what the Minister has done in regard to this question which has been raised once or twice for consideration. There are some points in item (D2) which I will raise again.
With regard to the question of the loans and the outstanding loans which the Minister has given at a figure something like one-third of the whole, anyone who has had occasion to examine into this matter in the past, or who has read the various reports made by the various Departments responsible for the last ten or twenty years, will know that there is no opinion which is more unanimously held than that these loans have always in the past been punctually repaid, and the smaller the type of fisherman the more punctual has been the repayment. Therefore, when you come to an occasion like the present where you have a large amount in arrear, it is quite clear that the cause is to be found in the undoubted fact that for the last two or three years the whole of this industry has been in a very bad state of disrepair, largely resulting from the state of economic chaos into which the country has been thrown by the recent internal dissensions. It is this chaos and this disrepair into which the industry has fallen that is responsible for the arrears of these loans, and there will be no likelihood of these loans being repaid until further money is expended in putting this industry into a healthier state than it is in at the present moment.
Anyone who has seen, as I have seen, and as others of this House who have had occasion with me to go around a good many of the fishing ports in Ireland have seen, know that without that amount of assistance the fishing industry in Ireland, which may prove to be one of the richest industries in this country, will never be placed in a healthy state of organisation. I am opposed personally—and I have always been invincibly opposed —to anything in the way of doles or gifts in this matter. This is not a case of doles or gifts. It is a case of an economic loan. The fishermen in the past have had advances made to them because of their poverty, and they have always punctually repaid. Now they are not in a position to do so, and the loss is not merely the loss to the fishermen—the loss is not merely a loss to the industry—the loss is a loss to the State. I think, from the fishery point of view, it is required that something definite be done in the way of further advances to help the industry that at the present moment is almost at a standstill. The facts that the Minister for Fisheries has brought before this Dáil are an argument, not merely sound in fishery development, but sound in financial recoupment. If the moneys that are owing are to be returned, further moneys will have to be expended. I do not notice that the Minister for Finance looks extraordinarily encouraging about it.
I was afraid to listen.
The fact is, nevertheless, as I say, that the arrears will extend until something definite has been done to enable the people who are in arrears to carry on their industry. If I am correctly informed—I am continually receiving letters from various parts of the country on this matter, not merely from those who are engaged in the industry, but from those with whom I came into touch in the past, and who are interested now from the point of view of endeavouring to assist their own localities—the position now with these fishermen, in many cases, is that a crew of four, five, six or seven, according to the different parts of the country where crews vary in size, own a boat, or one of the crew owns a boat, and the other members of the crew have shares in the equipment of that boat, and owing to the lack of business during the last two years these boats, which have been purchased because of advances made by the State, cannot carry on. They have not even the equipment and tackle to do it. They are looking for loans in order to get that equipment and to get that tackle. Until the State can come forward and assist them to put their boats into such a state of repair that they can once again engage in business, it is not merely a question of thirty per cent. or forty per cent. of the loans that will be in arrears; the percentage must inevitably grow. Whereas I am perfectly convinced that if the money be forthcoming, that is to say, if steps be taken—let me avoid the mention of money in that regard—to enable boats that have been purchased, and that are at present without tackle or equipment, to equip themselves as they ought to be equipped in order to begin in a few weeks the spring fishing, the industry will revive. And if the industry is brought to renewed state of health—it was never worse than it is now—economic advantages will accrue to the entire country, and incidentally—a matter of much narrower concern, but much more immediate to the Minister for Finance—the Minister will be able to look with greater confidence to getting back the moneys that have already been advanced.
I want to say a word in favour of the line of argument pursued by Deputy Figgis, inasmuch as the money expended or guaranteed by the State in this matter is going to be the most quickly reproductive of any money. Unless there is a State guarantee, which means a sort of national insurance, the opportunity for fishermen to equip themselves and their boats is gone. Private enterprise cannot do it—private enterprise will not do it in the way it ought to be done, because the risk is too great for an individual, and if it is not too great, then the private individual expects so big a return that it makes it uneconomic for the fishermen. It is essentially a case for sharing the burden amongst the whole community. The second best course, perhaps, would have been if the Minister for Fisheries had been able to produce to us a scheme of mutual insurance of a very widespread character, which would insure the State against any risk of loss accruing from loans which might be granted. I would like to have heard from the Minister some more information regarding the schemes of development referred to in D1, which might have had to do with the provision of markets within this country and improvements in methods of transit within the country.
There have been statements made that the Minister had considered, or, shall I say, spent some of the moneys, under this head, making inquiries regarding the marketing of fish. I would like to have heard from him what has become of these inquiries. What is the result of them? How soon may we expect to see markets established in all the smaller towns? How soon may we expect to see a system of transportation through the country, supplying those towns from the fishing stations? I would like to have heard a little more, too, about the schools for training which he speaks of. Certain sums have been expended on boat building, net-making, and other matters of that kind, and I would like to have heard something about them. I would like to hear what are the extensions we may look for during the coming year, whether the cooperage proposals have been undertaken, and we would also like to have some idea from the Minister whether he conceives this industry as one which may be of great national importance, worthy of the establishment of a Ministry. I am very sorry, indeed, to note that he has not much prospect of getting any larger sums of money, unless special Votes are taken at a later stage. I see by the preliminary paper that has been issued for the coming year that he is not going to be much better served in regard to finance. That is to be regretted, but I suppose that regret will have to be expressed on another occasion.
It is only a Vote on account.
Do not make any mistake. I hope Deputy Wilson will support me and others in urging that larger sums of money may be available than those referred to.
The milch cow.
I would remind Deputy Hewat that there is nothing in this Estimate regarding the Ministry of Agriculture or the dairy stock of the country. Milch cows are not referred to, though Deputy Hewat appears to think that it is primarily a subject for milking the cow. I want to urge seriously upon the Minister for Fisheries and the Minister for Finance that the fishery industry is one that has hitherto been too great a gamble, the risk of which has been undertaken by the individual fisherman. It is too great a gamble to be undertaken by the individual fisherman, and it is impossible for any individual fisherman, without assistance from an outside authority, to organise the industry in such a way as to spread the risk. From the national point of view, where you have an industry of the potentiality of the fishing industry, and where to be successful great risks must be undertaken not merely of life but of money—risks that cannot be met by any foresight; natural risks that are beyond the risks undertaken by any other industry or calling—there should be a very wide extension of what might be called mutual sharing of the burden, so that where men do undertake the risks of fishing round the coasts, where they bear some—as they must—of those risks themselves, other portions of the risk should be undertaken by the community at large. I believe it is possible to develop a system of mutual insurance, part of which risk will be borne by the State and part by the fishermen themselves. I am sorry it is not possible for the Minister to say that under the sub-head D1—fishery development—some such proposal as that has not been developed and accepted by the Ministry of Fisheries and also by the Ministry of Finance.
It is, in fact, national defence of the right kind.
I forgot to ask the Minister a question in connection with oysters. There is an inquiry in Arklow as to whether they could supply to the London market oysters of a certain quality. I am told that on investigation there and in Courtown it was found that the oyster beds had been allowed to get into such a state that they will require dredging and treatment of a peculiar nature to enable the oysters to be marketable in London. I would like to ask the Minister has he heard anything on that subject, and would he let us know what he is doing in the matter. I want also to remove the impression given by Deputy O'Connell that I am opposed to the granting of facilities to the fishermen. Having regard to the fact that there are two fishing villages in my constituency, that would be a very foolish attitude for me to take up. Apart from that, where I am not quite in accordance with the method adopted in the past is that where loans are granted some provision should be made for marketing the fish caught. More attention should be paid to the markets, so that when you provide fishermen with boats and they catch fish you will be repaid.
In connection with this grant for fishery development, the debate that has taken place should indicate to the Minister for Fisheries the absolute necessity of giving us these Votes in much greater detail in the future. The Minister for Fisheries is, I think, in a peculiar position. He has now apparently to take charge of an industry, and the claim that is made on behalf of sections of the Dáil is that he should occupy a grandmotherly position in connection with the industries of the country. It may be quite good and proper that the country should subsidise fisheries, but if so, they should do it on some commonsense lines. The fitting out of obsolete sailing boats to compete with the modern steam trawler does not appeal to me as an economic proposition for which a levy should be made on the country. Deputy Johnson, of course, is consistent. His ideas are socialistic and are, I think, socialistic to the extent of being carried on at the expense of the State, the State, of course, being Deputy Johnson and myself and others like us. But it seems to me that he need not in this matter go further than a proposition that the people in the fishing industry, or who run the risks of fishing for the purpose of gaining a livelihood on the sea, might themselves co-operate. There is nothing to prevent their doing so. As regards the fishing industry as a whole, if you look round other countries you do not see, I think, that the Governments are called upon to provide subsidies. Private enterprise, in most cases at all events, is quite sufficient to provide not only development of the fishing industry but the carrying on of it in a very active way, so that one of the troubles of recent years has been the tremendous competition that has arisen and that has so affected the industry that the demand has been insufficient for the supply of fish in the markets. Deputy Figgis and Deputy Johnson, notwithstanding that, want us to fit out obsolete tonnage along the coast with the hope of making money out of it. Going down to the extreme west of Ireland, there are opportunities for development of the inland fisheries.
The main thing, I think, is that this whole question of fishery development should really be looked on as an economic proposition. It should not be looked upon as a means of getting grants from the Government which cannot be repaid. We see all around the coast boats that have been bought, possibly at the people's own expense, as they were probably to a large extent optimistic as to the likelihood of making a living. The boats are practically all tied up to-day, and the owners have not even a hope of making a living. To consider the development of industry on these lines is only contemplating throwing good money after bad. I would rather foster and encourage, as far as possible, private enterprise in the provision of up-to-date trawlers, which would be more benefit to the fishing industry, in my judgment, than attempting to spend further money on boats of the kind referred to here.
Does the Deputy mean that the State should foster the encouragement of private enterprise by providing trawlers?
Deputy Johnson does not, I think, want an answer to that question from me.
In reference to the reply of the Minister with regard to the money allocated to the Conservators, it does not seem to be so much his fault, as that the sum allocated is entirely inadequate, considering the very great importance of the subject. I think he mentioned that £4,500 were allocated to Conservators. I hope when the next estimate for this thing comes round, the amount allowed will be very much larger, because the fishing industry, from the point of view of food supply and other things, is one of the most important, and is only second to the cattle industry. I asked for an explanation as to why there was no money available for the various counties where there are lakes and rivers. I attach more importance to inland fisheries than to sea fisheries; I am more interested in them. I am now ventilating the subject so that the Minister may endeavour to obtain a very much larger sum when this important matter again comes forward.
I think Deputy Hewat, can hardly accuse me of being socialistic in my ideas.
You never know.
I would like to remind the Deputy that fishing is not the only industry which has received subsidies from the Government. I recollect that quite recently the building industry received a subsidy from the Government, and in those circumstances, the fishing industry can be excused.
I do not think the building industry got the subsidy.
Well, it is a matter between Deputy Johnson and Deputy Hewat as to whether the workers or the building industry got it. With regard to the fishing industry, it is a matter of very great importance that everything within reason should be done to develop fisheries along the coast, and in the rivers and lakes. I know there are many men who carry on the combined business of small farmers and fishermen. Their capital is very small, and they have been extremely hard hit during the last two or three years by the bad demand for their products.
Although I am not in favour of expenditure, still I think expense incurred along the lines suggested by Deputy Johnson might eventually mean a paying undertaking for the Government. Before fishing can be made a successful proposition, it is necessary that some efforts should be made to reduce the freight rates between our ports and the English markets, and some effort should be made to get special methods of transport, such as fast trains and motor services, with refrigerating cars for the fish.
The inland fisheries are matters of great importance, and I am sure the Minister has given some attention to them. I think the interest of the farmers who occupy lands through which rivers flow should be considered, and, if possible, the fishing rights which have been recently taken from them should be restored. Possibly there are certain restrictions in regard to the formation of Boards of Conservators.
rose.
Deputy Figgis has already spoken three times, and he cannot speak now unless upon a point of explanation.
Deputy Hewat made certain comments upon statements I made, and I would like to deal with them. They are not very important, however, and I could bring them under Sub-head D. (2).
I move under Standing Order 49, that the Dáil proceed to the next business.
But the Minister must reply.
The next business would be the next item on the Orders of the Day; that would mean we would leave the Supplementary Estimates altogether.
I mean that we should proceed to the next sub-head of the same Estimate. If the ruling is that the motion would involve leaving the Supplementary Estimates, I withdraw it.
Standing Order says that an Teachta may move "That the Dáil proceed to the next business." I take it the next business is the next Sub-head.
Mr. O'CONNELL
With regard to the fishery cruiser, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to numerous complaints which have been made and in regard to which questions have been asked. They have reference to the capture of trawlers which were found fishing within prohibited areas. The allegations are to the effect that, while many of these trawlers have been captured, no prosecutions have followed, and I would like if he would give us a return covering a given period, say, the past six or twelve months, of the number of captures which have been made, the number of trawlers which have been caught engaged in illegal fishing, and the number of prosecutions which have followed from them, if any, and whether a fine has been inflicted, or whether convictions have followed. Now, a further allegation is to the effect —and I would like to be put right on this matter if I am wrong—that if a prosecution does not follow within six months, the law is that there can be no prosecution. I do not know whether that is the case or not, but I would like to have a statement from the Minister on the matter. The fishermen themselves have also complained that they have reported trawlers which they have discovered within the prohibited area. They have given their numbers and marked on charts where the trawlers have been found. They reported these to the Ministry of Fisheries, and still no action has been taken, and no prosecution has followed. The complaints under this head are very serious and very numerous, and it has even, I am informed, extended to the crew of the cruiser itself. They say they have repeatedly made captures, and have made reports, and that nothing has followed, and there does not seem to be much use in capturing those trawlers. I would like to point to a more serious aspect of these allegations to the effect that the reason that prosecutions have not followed, especially in the case of British trawlers, is that the Free State authorities have neither the right nor the power to order a prosecution. Now, I would like to have this matter cleared up, because it is being said, and political capital is being made out of it, if I may say so, that while Belgian or French trawlers are or can be prosecuted, that the position is that under the Treaty we are not in a position to prosecute English trawlers which may be found poaching on our fishing ground. Personally I do not believe that is the case. But I would like to have the matter cleared up. I do trust that when these trawlers are captured that a prosecution will immediately follow. I would further say that a fine of such a comparatively large amount as £50, £80, or £100 does not meet the position. Because a trawler will not mind paying a fine of £50 or £100 when the value of its catch on that occasion may be £2,000. Some more drastic punishment than a fine should be inflicted in order to be effective, if it is within the power of the Court to have it inflicted. I suggest in such cases, and especially in the case of a second offence, that the gear and trawl should be confiscated. That is the only way I think in which this poaching can ever be effectively dealt with. It is undoubtedly a very grave evil indeed. Off the Aran Islands a dozen of these English trawlers may be seen just on the borders of the prohibited area very often, and there is no doubt that they are constantly invading the fishing grounds in that direction, and the Government does not seem to be taking the steps that are necessary and that should be taken in order to afford the necessary protection to our fishing industry.
I think if the Minister will answer that definite statement by Deputy O'Connell now it would be better than that we should repeat the arguments.
I have not answered the statement made under D. 1 heading yet. We proceeded from D. 1 to D. 2 without my answering the points raised.
It might be as well to answer the point raised by Deputy O'Connell now.
Very well. I will take Deputy O'Connell's point first, and I think it is a far more important point than any point that has been raised here to-day. I quite agree with him that there is real ground for complaint in this matter. I happen to have the actual figures in connection with this subject. Since I came into office it is a matter that has been troubling me considerably. There have been 21 cases of British trawlers since January, 1923, detected illegally fishing inside the prohibited area. In two of these cases prosecutions were taken and they were brought before the District Justices. The question of jurisdiction was raised and they were referred to the Chief State Solicitor.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Were these British trawlers?
Yes, British only. Out of the remaining 19 cases the papers were sent to the Chief State Solicitor in the ordinary way by the Minister, and so far no proceedings have been taken. In 15 of those cases, as far as I can understand, the right of prosecution has now lapsed through the efflux of time. In other words, I believe Deputy O'Connell is right in suggesting that after six months' lapse we have no longer the power to prosecute. In the remaining four cases a prosecution is still pending. In addition to these offences by the British trawlers, reports of offences by seven Belgian trawlers have also been received. These cases are still under the consideration of the Law Advisers of the Government. Now it is not correct, as far as I know, to assume that this Government has no right to prosecute British trawlers, while we could prosecute trawlers belonging to other Powers. In fact if anything, the reverse is the case. The British have admitted our bye-laws. They are bound by our bye-law limits. And with regard to that, therefore their position is the same as pre-Treaty; that is, they can be prosecuted by us for infringing the limit beyond the three-mile limit where the bye-laws of the old D.A.T.I. are in existence. The position is different with non-British trawlers in this sense, that they can fish between the three-mile limit and the bye-law limit with impunity if they do not land their fish in this country. If they do land their fish in this country we can seize it, but we have no power to take them once they are outside the three-mile limit.
What are the bye-law limits?
There are different bye-laws. The one that this applies particularly to is the one analogous to that of Moray Firth. The Moray Firth section is identical with ours for Dungarvan. The Belgian and French can come within the bye-law limit and the three-mile limit and fish with impunity and then clear off to France and Belgium. If they landed the fish in Ireland we could capture it, and we are trying to make arrangements such as obtained in the old days; that is, if they landed their fish in England it would be forfeited. I admit the present condition is unsatisfactory, and I admit it would be wrong of me to come before the Dáil with a new estimate and to ask for £10,000 to spend in the upkeep of the "Muirchu" and £10,000 for the purchase of another cruiser and for its upkeep. It would be wrong and I am not going to put up a case to ask for that money unless there is a change and an immediate change. There is no use having fishery patrol boats making captures if nothing can be done about them, and as far as Deputy O'Connell has raised that point, I am in agreement with him.
Mr. O'CONNELL
The Minister's statement is satisfactory as far as it goes, but it is quite evident the matter cannot be left at that. We have his statement to the effect that in 15 out of 19 cases the time for prosecutions lapsed, and that these prosecutions cannot now be brought because proceedings were not started within the specified time. We have been told that there are four prosecutions pending, but we do not know how long ago it is since these four cases were detected, and probably the period for prosecutions in these cases will lapse in a short time also. I am glad that the Attorney-General has come into the House, as the matter under discussion is one that would specially concern him. Perhaps he would be able to inform the Dáil what exactly is the position, because it is quite plain that the position as stated by the Minister for Fisheries is not at all satisfactory. I do not see how the money under this Estimate can be voted, because the usefulness of this fishing cruiser seems to be nil. That appears to be the case anyway in the statement made by the Minister.
I understand that there has been a discussion for a considerable time on this matter, but, unfortunately, I have been engaged elsewhere, and, therefore, I am not familiar with all the matters which have been mentioned here. The position as regards these prosecutions has been one of considerable difficulty. The important thing is to try and catch these British ships before they leave the three-mile limit. If they can be caught and held they can be dealt with, as has been done in some cases. There is no question that we cannot touch, say, Belgian or French boats which are outside the three-mile limit until we enter into some kind of a convention. I think there is a convention between Great Britain and France on the subject. The only thing possible with reference to this was done on one or two former occasions, when the French Consul was approached, and he communicated with his Government. The French Government did, I believe, on one occasion send a warship of some kind to scatter the offending French trawlers which were injuring the fisheries. We cannot prosecute these people unless we catch them inside the three-mile limit and hold them until we can convict them.
As regards the British ships, the position is not clear. It is clear if we can catch them within the three-mile limit and hold them. When I speak of British ships I mean ships registered in Great Britain and whose owners live in Great Britain. Some of these people have taken up a very defiant attitude. If they are caught outside the three-mile limit some of them take up an attitude of defiance and say "you can do nothing," that the effect of the establishment of the Free State has been to alter the preexisting condition of affairs by which you could pursue them across the water. Similarly the bye-law area has been one of quite considerable doubt. Questions analogous to those arising with reference to the fisheries have been raised in another case which is at present before the Courts with reference to workmen's compensation, and as to how far the rules set up under the Workmen's Compensation Act enable us still to have proceedings taken here and enforced against a shipowner in England, as was the case before the establishment of the Free State. These questions are now before the Courts. Their decision to a certain extent affects the position of these trawlers which are caught in the bye-law area. I do not know that there has been any admission by any of these people that the bye-law area applies to them, but we have certainly had it under consideration, and it has presented considerable difficulties. On the whole, we believe that, as far as we are concerned, the old rules and bye-laws continue in force, and it is intended to enforce them, but that question is affected by the case that is put up here. The value of the Minister's cruiser is to catch the ships and hold them inside the three-mile limit.
I suppose the real explanation of its failure to do so up to the present is that the cruiser is not fast enough. I notice that Paragraph 6 of the Treaty deals with this question of coastal defence, and states that until an arrangement has been made between the British and Irish Governments, whereby the Irish Free State undertakes her own coastal defence, the defence by sea of Great Britain and Ireland is to be undertaken by the English Government. The second paragraph of the Article reads:—"But this shall not prevent the construction or maintenance by the Government of the Irish Free State of such vessels as are necessary for the protection of the revenue or the fisheries." I suppose, according to the Attorney-General, the vessel is not suitable for the protection of the fisheries. One that would be suitable, I suppose, would have to be a very fast vessel and well armed. I think that the cruiser referred to in this Vote is slow, and not very well armed. I am reminded that it had certain armaments a few years ago, when its present crew, as a matter of fact, were responsible for the performance in 1916 when Liberty Hall was shelled. I suppose the officers responsible for the shooting were not the navigation officers. The vessel, at any rate, is not suitable for protecting the fisheries. I am told that she is capable, when put to the test, of doing six knots an hour. There were, I think, a number of faster vessels, but I understand that some of them have been withdrawn from service—demobbed. I understand that they were faster than what was formerly the "Helga," and I wonder whether it has not been possible, pending a declaration of the law regarding the protection of the fisheries, to have something done. This proposition rather suggests that the fishery cruiser had better be withdrawn from service, because if 15 out of 21 cases were in the first half of last year, and only four cases within the second six months, it appears as though there had been no attempts to catch offenders, and as a matter of practice, the offending trawlers are putting their fingers to their noses.
One of the proprietors so expressed his feelings in writing.
I do not know whether it would not be a very good case to take up and challenge the right of these trawlers in some very drastic fashion and enforce action in the Courts from the other side of the water. If we are entitled to protect the fisheries according to this Article of the Treaty we are entitled to make due provision for that protection, and we are entitled to take all the steps that are necessary within our jurisdiction. The explanation given by the Attorney-General suggests a long period of litigation unless some more satisfactory method of arriving at agreement with the British authorities is come to. A Convention or Treaty respecting this matter cannot be arrived at quickly. I wonder whether there has been any consideration given to the proposal to extend the limits of the jurisdiction by international Convention to the twelve miles suggested by two Governments. Perhaps the present state of opinion in America regarding the prohibition area might induce them to come to an agreement to extend the limit to twelve miles, and I believe Russia is of the same opinion. Perhaps with the United States, Ireland, and Russia in agreement on this matter, we could persuade all the other nations of the world to extend the limit to the twelve miles. I would like to urge, though, that this matter, as well as other matters of the same kind, should be pressed forward very rapidly, and if Conventions or agreements with Britain are necessary that that should be the line to be taken rather than a continuous round of litigation. It is quite clear from all one has heard that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction around the coast in this matter, and the statement of the Minister for Fisheries is sufficient to warrant the Dáil in supporting his contention that the Executive Council should press this matter of agreement between the two countries forward as fast and as earnestly as possible.
There is one matter that I should have mentioned, and it is this, that the Government has ready now a Bill dealing with the reciprocal enforcements of various kinds of decrees and orders of courts between Great Britain and this country. That Bill will be introduced into the Dáil immediately. It is actually drafted and will be ready for introduction when the Courts of Justice Bill is passed, probably within the next week or so. When that Bill has been dealt with, I think the position will be very materially eased.
Arising out of this matter, might I ask the Minister for Fisheries whether, quite recently, the vessel formerly called the "Helga" went into a Belfast dockyard for repairs without any estimate being obtained from any other firm?
The Deputy cannot raise that question now, as it has already been discussed on the original estimate.
With regard to rural industries, I desire to ask the Minister if he intends to re-open the small industries closed during the last few years, particularly those in the County Mayo. One or two were closed because the buildings in which the industries were carried on were attacked and destroyed by the Black and Tans, and the industries have not since been re-opened. Some other industries are closed for other reasons. In these years of depression it is an unfortunate thing in these poor localities that no attempt has been made to re-open these little industries and give employment to the very poor people who were formerly employed in them. I would be glad to have an assurance from the Minister that they will be re-opened.
I would like to ask the Minister if he can see his way to do anything about a suggestion I made some time ago for the establishment of an ice factory in connection with the fishing industry, and also as to the establishment of industries for net and barrel making. The establishment of such industries would give much needed employment in the country.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Sears, this Department is only in process of being handed over to me; that is, the Department dealing with rural industries. It has not yet been legally handed over to me, and I am not quite versed in all the ramifications of it. I am aware, of course, that at several centres these little industries had to be closed in recent years from one cause or another, and the question of their re-opening is one which will have to be considered on its merits, and, of course, will have to be governed by the amount of money available for them.
I may as well go back to deal with the different points as they were raised. Several Deputies referred to the loans—Deputies McFadden, Wilson, O'Connell and Figgis. I think I answered Deputy McFadden to the extent that I said I hoped, and had a certain amount of assurance, that these loans would be again made available in the near future. I think that answers Deputy Wilson also. I hope these loans will be made available. I agree with Deputy Figgis's argument that giving these loans now is the only hope not only of putting the poorest portion of our population on their feet, but of recovering the amount that is outstanding. He made some point about how I managed the staff. My staff is really what you might call a coalition staff. It is a coalescing of the Fishery Branches of the Department of Agriculture and of the Congested Districts Board. I am now getting three or four men who were dealing with the Rural Industries Section of the Congested Districts Board. All except the Rural Industries were brought into one building under the permanent head of the Department—the Secretary to the Ministry. As a matter of fact, as far as the fishery portion of the staff is concerned, a saving has been made.
resumed the Chair.
Going back again to the loans, Deputy O'Connell asked that consideration should be given and consideration has been given, as far as Finance will allow it. They have occasionally given us a certain amount of liberty. Consideration will be given to persons so long as the Department is genuinely satisfied that an honest effort will be made to repay.
Will the Minister wipe out the arrears?
No.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Why not twentyfive per cent. off?
Issue fishery bonds.
Deputy Wilson referred to the question of insurance, and to the fact that we have been more or less throwing money into a sieve. He asked are we going to pay for casualties. Yes; where a boat is lying up premiums are refunded. There have been a few casualties this year where payments were made by the insurance company in this country. The insurance works out about one and a half per cent. per annum, which is not, I think, very high. With regard to the question of the subsidy to the Aran-Galway steamer, as an alternative route, first of all this subsidy of £1,100 is also one of our inheritances. We inherited this from the Congested Districts Board. The alternative scheme is under consideration. All that I can really say about it, is that it is being considered. There are many things against the Coshla route as well as against the Galway route.
Is there a railway?
There is not even a road.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Oh, yes; there is.
There is no railway station nearer than Maam Cross, ten or twelve miles. As far as I can remember, when the thing was before me first, it was stated that it would require the making or the rehauling of at least two or three miles of road, which would be the work of the County Council.
Mr. O'CONNELL
The suggestion was that a lorry service should be established between Galway town and Coshla Bay. For twenty miles of that distance there is a good steam-rolled road. There is only a short distance that would have to be widened or reconstructed.
I would recommend the Deputy then to get the Galway County Council to do that part first, and we will see what we will do.
Will you persuade the Ministry to provide the money on loan?
It is not for my Ministry. Deputy Hewat thought that the Department is apparently being made a grandmother for fisheries.
Mr. O'CONNELL
A milch cow.
The fact is that we are trying to get out of that position. The Congested Districts Board was, if anything, more or less in that position. I think the new method of the Vote coming on here instead of being as it was before, more or less freely handled by a body like the Congested Districts Board, will remove all possibility of the grandmother element appearing. He referred to the question of help. In practically every country in which fishing has made any headway there has been Government help—in Canada, Norway, Denmark, and so on. He talked about grants. I have never raised the question of grants. There is no question of grants. They are loans, and loans on reasonable security, and loans which, as Deputy Figgis said—I agree with him for once in my life—have been up to the recent slump years most honourably repaid. They have not been able to meet them in the last few years, but many other portions of the community were also hard hit during the last few years, and they have not been able to meet their liabilities. The farmers asked for time for repayment of their land annuities, because of the position in which they are. These men were harder hit even than the farmers. They have such an extremely good record that I do not feel like coming down to bite their heads off at this particular juncture.
Compound the arrears ! What about the oysters?
I am afraid Deputy Wilson did not give me anything very definite to go upon. I think he was a bit mixed about the dredging.
I understand that when the people who were applied to to supply these oysters came to examine the beds at Courtown and Arklow, they found that by reason of the neglect for the last four or five years the beds required certain treatment to bring them into operation again. I brought it to your notice with a view to asking you whether application had been made to your Department——
The Deputy must address the Chair. He cannot enter into a conversation with the Minister.
I beg your pardon. My object was to direct the Minister's attention to this market for oysters and to the fact that the beds require treatment to make the oysters suitable for marketing in London.
This matter was raised with me privately by Deputy Byrne. The Arklow fishermen have promised to put up a proposition to me, and when that is put before me it will be time enough to consider it.
Before you put the Estimate, am I in order in asking the Minister a question about rural industries? Is that part of the Estimate finished? There was no discussion upon it.
I do not mind the question being asked.
I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister with regard to rural industries. I presume by rural industries he means industries like knitting and lace-making, homespuns and things of that kind. I would suggest to him that these articles have not been anything like sufficiently advertised. The people do not know where they are made or what is made. In many cases the articles made are not suitable for the market, as you will find if you go into a shop in Dublin to get a pair of socks for city wear. The same thing applies to homespuns. We have a lot of Scotch homespuns advertised and sold, and I would suggest that if portion of the funds of the Ministry were spent in advertising more fully to the Irish public, and perhaps to the English public, these articles which constitute the rural industries that a very big trade might be built up, with great advantage to the poor people concerned.
We actually have a scheme under consideration which we hope will put these industries on an economic basis.
I hope the accounts will be kept, so that we will be able to see the profit and loss.
You can ask that on next year's Estimates.