Before I address myself to answering the different points raised, it is due to me to express my gratitude for the way Deputies have dealt with the Estimate of my Department. Their criticism of the Department has been extremely helpful, and all I regret is that the Minister for Finance was not here during the whole debate. However, I will take steps to bring all that has been said under his notice, because I think it is absolute proof that there is a demand from the whole country, and even from every class in the country, that more money should be made available for our fisheries. At any rate, it is perfectly clear, from what has been said from the different parts of the House, that there is a general demand for at least one other fishery cruiser.
Coming to the different questions asked, Deputy Byrne and Deputy Everett wanted to know the amount of money spent last year by the Fishery Department on sea fisheries, as distinct from river fisheries. The figures are, for sea fisheries, £20,051 and £9,041 for patrolling. They asked, secondly, how much was spent on salaries, insurances and interest on loans. No salaries are included in that. Wages only are included. I have not the exact figure, but insurance cost £5,172 and the interest on loans was nil, as the Department does not pay interest. They asked what residue, if any, was spent in actual development work and in what manner. £14,324 was spent on development work. Loans came to £3,294. Purchase of nets and sale of barrels came to £3,284. Repairing boats and engines came to £1,618 Instruction in fisheries, etc., came to £2,298. Dredging of harbours comes to £783. That answers the point made by Deputy Wilson, because that £783 was spent in dredging Arklow Harbour. Various small schemes come to £3,047.
Both Deputy Byrne and Deputy Everett referred to the pressure by the Department on the fishermen in trying to collect outstanding loans. The demands go out automatically at certain periods of the year for payment of instalments. As a matter of fact, we have not been anything like harsh with any of the borrowers in any part of the country. Dredging, as a whole, is a matter for the Board of Public Works. The £1,000 for my Department is merely where dredging is done specifically for the fishing industry. Dredging of harbours is done for ordinary commerce as well as for fishing, and where dredging is not done specifically for the purpose of helping the fishing industry, it does not fall on my Department.
Both Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Redmond took exception to the way— perhaps with a certain amount of justification—in which the items in the Estimates were set out. There is no reason why they should not be set out in greater detail. I think the objection was the greater cost of printing. Next year I can have the items set out in more detail.
Deputy O'Connell also raised a question as to the development of the home markets. In considering the development of the inland markets, one has to take into consideration the fact that here we have a scattered population. We have not the big centres of population that exist in England. Our population is scattered and, therefore, the inland market will be limited. No matter what you do it will be always a very difficult thing to get at. We have been trying to do something about it. One of our superintendents has been round seeing the possibilities in certain towns and trying to get the better type of shopkeeper to take up the sale of fish.
Deputy O'Connell raised the question of the Arran steamer. It seems strange that this should appear under fishery development. It is not, in any sense, an item for fishery development. It is an inheritance from the Congested Districts Board. They contributed towards this steamer, which was more for helping communication between the islands and the mainland than for any specific fishery purpose. The Coshla scheme is under consideration.
I think I need scarcely refer to Deputy Redmond's point, that because we had only £106,580 to expend, £23,412 was entirely too much to spend on salaries. Deputy Johnson, I think, dealt with that effectively. The ratio of salaries to the total vote does not arise, because Government Departments, administering ordinary Government duties, cannot be judged by their turnover on the money spent.
I have been in communication with the Department of Education in connection with publicity and instruction in the schools. A good deal could be done in the schools by devoting some of the time spent on object lessons, and matters of that kind, to little lectures on fish as a food. During the present year something will probably be done in that direction. With regard to general publicity, that is being tried in America and in England at present. There is an "Eat-more-fish" campaign there, and when we see the result of it we will probably take it on here.
Deputy Johnson says, with a good deal of soundness, that we might succeed better by concentrating on helping the inshore men with the smaller type of boats than in going in for big schemes of steam trawling. I will deal with Deputy Doherty's suggestion later. There is a great deal in Deputy Johnson's point of view, but at the same time we must remember that these small boats used on the west coast are necessarily restricted in their operations, because of weather conditions, and are often not able to get to sea. Then, they are more used as a sort of supplement to a little holding. They are used by the half-farmer-half-fisherman, and, in themselves, they hardly enable a person to make a livelihood.
Deputy Johnson asked me about the constitution of the International Council for the Study of the Sea, for which £400 is provided as our contribution in the Estimates. It is composed of representatives of States. Each State appoints a representative from its Fishery Department to sit on this Council, and the State contributes to the cost. The bigger countries pay £500, and the smaller countries something less. A member of the scientific staff of my Department is a member of the International Council.
Deputy Johnson also raised a question as regards rural industries and what they were exactly. I am not quite clear as to what exactly he wants to find out. When started first, we take it for granted that they will be a considerable charge on the State, but we work towards making them eventually self-supporting. Some of them are actually self-supporting. Others, for various reasons, are not. As I have pointed out, last year we closed down six, which the turnover did not justify us in continuing. I am rather inclined to continue that policy of closing down, if they are not being properly taken advantage of. Deputy White referred to the extension of these classes in certain places where there is a general demand. If we find in any district that there are a number of girls who would attend these classes and avail of the advantages which they offer, we are prepared to start classes.
Deputy Hogan, of Clare, raised three or four points about the loans. I have provided £7,000 for inshore men for the year. That is, of course, subject to financial control. Except in the case of very small loans, we have to go in each case to the Department of Finance for sanction to the issue of a loan. Some Deputies raised a question as to securities. I am not prepared to advocate any change in the present policy —that is that two solvent securities be required for each loan. If a man is not able to get two persons to come along and back him with their names, it is fair for us to assume that that man is not reliable, and that we would not be justified in giving him State money. Deputy Hogan raised again the question of shooting seals which I dealt with on the Second Reading of the Fishery Bill, and also in reply to a question that day. Where the fishermen think that shooting is the best thing, well and good. Whenever fishermen apply for a permit for a rifle to the Department of Justice and let me know that they have done so, I always recommend the Department of Justice to grant a permit for the rifle. That has been done in a great many cases throughout the country.
