Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Mar 1931

Vol. 37 No. 11

In Committee on Finance. - Supplementary Estimates. Vote No. 54—Fisheries and Gaeltacht Services.

Mr. Blythe

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £12,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1931, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tailte agus Iascaigh agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na hOifige sin, maraon le hIldeontaisí i gCabhair.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £12,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, and of certain Services administered by that Office including Sundry Grants in Aid.

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Lynch)

This Estimate is for the replacement of a sum of £12,000 advanced from the Contingencies Fund for the purposes mentioned in Part 3 of the Estimate—that is, £11,625 for the construction of enclosures, raised kilns and foreshore works to facilitate gathering of seaweed, and £375 for the replanting of mussel beds in Co. Meath. I had expected that it would be possible to have found the necessary funds under the general Vote for Relief, but the whole of that Vote has been otherwise allocated and it is necessary to come to the House for this Vote. The work done in connection with the expenditure of £11,625 has been directed to trying out here, on a fairly large scale, the Breton method of dealing with the winter weed. The winter weed is thrown up in large quantities by storms from October to March. The kelp made from that weed is not of a high quality and, because of the fact that it was not considered of a high quality, it was largely neglected here. In Brittany, where the winter weed is extensively used, the industry is of considerable importance. Generally speaking, the weed in this country is better than the weed in Brittany because of the low temperature here.

We felt, therefore, that better or equal handling of winter weed might be also of some advantage, and we felt that kelp might be produced from it of at least as good a quality as is produced in Brittany. For that purpose an officer of the Department was sent across last autumn to study their method of dealing with the weed. It appears that the weed is gathered immediately after the storms and that it is stacked in rough stone enclosures about 40 by 20 feet. The stone enclosure is for the purpose of making the stacking more easy. After the stack is built up it is thatched with weed that is not used for kelp, or with some other material in order to protect it from rain, which washes out a good deal of the iodine content. It will be easy to understand that as the kelp makers here were led to believe in the past that this weed was of little or no value from the point of view of making kelp, it would be hard to expect them to undertake the collection of this weed themselves and turn it into kelp unless they got some guarantee that their labour would be repaid, and that the kelp produced would be of sufficient value to repay their labour. At the time that the relief works were being given for the purpose of giving employment for other sections of the community, I thought it was right to avail of that opportunity to provide some employment for these men, who were suffering from no less poverty or hardship than the other persons who were getting money from the Relief Vote, especially as the work that could be done might be of very considerable value from the experimental point of view.

It would also be of a capital nature in the sense that these enclosures, raised kilns or little foreshore works would remain. For that reason then the relief money was spent and these men, the kelp gatherers, were employed around the coast in making these enclosures. The scheme was that they usually built these enclosures on their own drying ground and were also employed in the collecting and the stacking of the weed. The work did not last more than a few weeks and the amount of weed gathered was not very large. About 3,000 tons were gathered and stacked. This will be eventually converted into kelp under the direction of the Department and will be the property of the Department. We ourselves will have the advantage of knowing the value of the kelp from the winter weed and the kelp gatherers then will be informed. That will enable them to make up their minds as to whether it is worth pursuing in future years. 176 enclosures have been built and will be the property of the person on whose ground they are built. A few raised kilns have also been erected this being the method of burning found most satisfactory. As there is a certain amount of research going on which might result in an improved type of kiln it was thought better to watch these experiments before going into kelp making on a large scale. There are other works, there are little things on the foreshore, which hamper the kelp makers very much on the passages along the foreshore and from the foreshore to the drying ground.

The £365 referred to was spent on replanting mussels at the mouth of the Boyne. This is a step towards reviving an industry which has in the past few years come to rather a low state. The mussels in this area were subject to pollution and were condemned by the medical officers in Great Britain and an order prohibiting their export was made. The results were that the beds were neglected and became very much overcrowded so that the mussels could not properly develop. About six hundred tons of mussels have been transplanted over a wide expanse at the mouth of the Boyne. The question of making a purification tank in connection with the mussel business has reached a fairly advanced stage. When these mussels are ripened and kept purified in the tank I hope that the ban on their export may be withdrawn.

Mr. Derrig

This is a Vote that we would like to have more information about. The House will recollect that last week we passed a Supplementary Estimate of £11,000 to make up for the deficiency on the original Vote. Now we are asked for a further £12,000 to recoup the contingency fund. I am not clear why this money was not paid from the original Vote. The Minister has said that the arrangement was that it could not be paid from the relief fund, but why was it necessary to bring in this Estimate at all? Why was not the whole thing dealt with on last week's Estimate? The Ministry are in the fortunate position that they know exactly how their plans have changed with regard to the kelp scheme but Deputies on this side of the House do not know it. When the original Estimate was being introduced the Minister told the House, as I emphasised last week, that he was only looking for a taken Vote and that there would be no real loss as this experiment was going to pay for itself. I do not say that it will not pay for itself but the money is not coming in this year. The receipts in a large measure are not coming in until next year but in the meantime the Minister has told us that there is a loss or deficiency of £4,000 leaving out this £12,000 altogether. What we want to know is this: what are the possibilities of the sale of this kelp product paying all the expenses or whether the position is that the kelp scheme is definitely not going to pay for itself. If it is a case of spending money for the purpose of giving employment let us be quite clear that we are doing that. On the other hand if we are conducting a scheme on business lines and we expect a return that will cover all our expenses— whether the return is this year or next year it does not matter—we want to be clear whether the expenditure is used solely for the purpose of relieving the Gaeltacht or whether there is a business scheme at all.

When questioned on the original Estimate the Minister said the factory in Galway would take all the output. The only thing that was troubling them was would they get enough kelp. There was no question about the disposal of the kelp, but it appears that as regards the Government not having a monopoly and having other buyers competing against them, things are in a rather awkward position. They have only got, the Minister said, two-thirds of the total production of kelp; the remainder has been sold to private buyers and furthermore the whole of the two-thirds was not sold to the factory in Galway. We would like some assurance from the Minister if he is satisfied, and we do not know that he is, that the factory in Galway is the best thing to develop this scheme and make it pay. We want some assurance that an effort will be made to get all the kelp disposed of to that factory and all the kelp in fact marketed through the Government agents. To me it seems extraordinary that the Government should put through this scheme at all if the position is that private enterprise will still be in competition with them, and that any time a foreign firm may come along and pull the whole thing to pieces.

As regards the capital, does the Minister seriously contend that the £12,000 he is looking for, and which has been already spent in the construction of enclosures, raised kilns, and foreshore works, is going to be realised? I think it is not and I think we can take it that that £12,000 is going to be a dead loss. These rough stone works are not going to be anything in the nature of capital for the State. What I want to know is: will this capital expenditure of £12,000, together with the other expenditure, that the Minister calls capital expenditure, which has been expended up to the present, be recovered and by what means? Will it be recovered from the people who are gathering the kelp by charging commission for these capital charges and initial expenditure?

As I frequently pointed out here the opinion I have is that the £20,000 spent for the benefit of the West of Ireland, for Donegal or other areas, is really very much larger than it appears, having regard to the circumstances of the areas. This Party are in favour of spending money in the Gaeltacht for the provision of employment, but we do not want to be placed in the position later on that we will be told these schemes are utterly uneconomic, and that there is no possibility whatever of them paying for themselves. In order to safeguard against that situation, to ensure that the scheme will go ahead and not collapse, we want to see it prudently and conservatively managed in the beginning. We do not want wild expenditure. We do not want to see a state of things occurring which may arise by accident, and which the Minister referred to, where people were paid for collecting weed which was not the right weed. That seems to indicate rather bad management. I would ask the Minister to take the opportunity when replying to give us more information as to the marketing of the kelp, the position of the factory, and as to whether in fact the kelp can be sold at a profit or not. He might also indicate whether the scheme is going to pay for itself or not, and finally say if the £12,000 is going to be a dead loss, or if there will be any method of recoupment.

Mr. Cassidy

I am glad that the Minister's Department has decided to expend this amount of money in order to develop the kelp industry. At the same time, I agree with Deputy Derrig that more information should be given to the House. For instance it is mentioned in connection with the kelp industry that it is intended to construct enclosures, raised kilns and foreshore works to facilitate the gathering of the weed. The Minister does not indicate where these enclosures, raised kilns, and foreshore works will be undertaken, although he makes mention in another sub-head in the Estimate of shell-fish development in County Meath.

I hope now that he is endeavouring to develop the kelp industry, and has erected an iodine factory in Galway, that he will also endeavour to develop the kelp industry around the fore-shores of Donegal and in the islands along the coast. As far as the kelp expenditure is concerned—in passing I may say that I welcome the spending of £11,629 in that respect—I think the amount should be under another sub-head. This sum appears under the sub-head dealing with the sea fisheries when I think it should more appropriately appear under the sub-head for rural industries or marine industries. The Minister will recollect that I complained here last year of the small amount that was being voted for the development of sea fisheries. I notice that the Minister has this sum allocated under "sea fisheries." After all, kelp is indirectly connected with sea fishing. Kelp gathering will probably help people in the rural districts also.

Deputy Derrig asked if the expenditure of the £11,629 was going to be uneconomic. I hope no Deputy is going to suggest that any schemes undertaken in Gaeltacht areas must be shown to be economic. I believe if we are going to develop the congested districts and the Gaeltacht areas some schemes will have to be put into operation which, from the ordinary financial point of view, will be uneconomic. I believe if you are going to establish industries in these areas that they must be given preferential treatment, and that they should be undertaken, even if they were uneconomic. I welcome the fact that this estimate has been introduced to develop the kelp industry, but I would like an assurance from the Minister, seeing that the iodine factory has been established in Galway, that attention will be given to the claims of Donegal and the islands along the sea-coast. I understand something has been done on Tory Island but other islands have not got a share.

Mr. Little

I would like to ask the Minister whether his Department has considered the question of encouraging the development of oysters. I approached the Department some time ago, and again recently, and hopes were held out for the development of oysters in County Waterford. I would like to know now if the Department is in a position to go ahead with that work at an early date. The other matter I would like to ask the Minister about is the raised kilns which he tells us was adopted from the idea in Brittany. I have been informed that this raised kiln was part of the process of M. Chamagne, who improved the iodine product and the value of the industry very considerably by this method. I understand that at one time the Free State Government approached the French Government, which put them into touch with M. Chamagne, who placed at the disposal of the former Government a considerable amount of information. I would like to know whether the Department proposes to adopt some of the methods of M. Chamagne in the production of iodine. The Minister might also tell the House whether there were expert objections to carrying on negotiations with M. Chamagne. I am not concerned with any other aspect of the experts' work, but I would like to know whether the Minister would be able to let Deputies see the report of the Irish experts on their examination of the Chamagne process.

Proinnsias O Fathaigh

Bhíos chun ceist do chur ar an Aire mar gheall ar chuidiú le daoine a gheibheann a slí bheatha as oisrí agus gliomach i gConamara. Anois deirtear liom gur féidir an rud seo do chur chun cinn agus gan ach cúpla céad punt do chaitheamh. Mar gheall ar an dtuairim gur chóir do gach scéim díol aisti féin ní réitim leis sin ach deirim gur chóir go mbeadh an t-colas againne. Ba chóir don Aire innsint dúinn a ndíolann siad asta féin no ná díolann ach is fearr an roinnt airgí do cliaitheamh ins an nGaeltacht ná tiocfadh aon tora as ná ná beadh éinní le déanamh ag na daoine. Is áthas dúinn go bhfuil an méid seo airgid le fáil chun ceilp do bhailiú agus tá súil agam go rachfar ar aghaidh leis an sceim. Mar sin tiocfadh airgead thar n-ais ar shlí éigin.

Seosamh O Mongáin

Ta cuid de Theachtaí an Tighe ag iarraidh an dtiocfaidh an t-airgead seo ar ais. Is deacair a rá an dtiocfa sé ar ais go díreach ach tá mé cinnte go dtiocfa sé ar ais ar go leor bealaí. Leis na bóithre beaga atáthar ag déanamh 'un an chladaigh agus na casáin atáthar ag oscailt leis an réidhteacht seo beidh na ceilpeadóirí in ann a trí oiread ar a laighead do dhéanamh agus do rinne siad cheana, agus sin go leor níos réadhcha. Tá go leor áiteacha anois agus go dtí gur rinneadh na hoibreacha seo níor bh'fhéidir cárr ná capall do thabhairt ionta. Sé an bealach 'na gcaithfí an fheamainn do thabhairt i dtír le cléibhe ar a ndromnacha as an gcladach cuid acu go minic ag dul go bhásta sa bhfairrge agus cuid eile acu ghá tarraingt aníos i gcléibhe le rópa. Anois tá bóithre déanta ins na háiteacha sin agus tig leis na daoine a gcairteannaí do thabhairt 'un an chladaigh agus an fheamainn do líonadh isteach ionta. Tá a leithéide seo de bhóithre déanta in áiteacha gur cheap na sinnsir a tháinig romhainn nach ndéanfaí bóithre choíche.

Bhí mé i gceanntar an Rinn Mhaola thimcheall's coicthís ó shoin agus bhí mé ag caint le sean-fhear atá ar a laighead ceithre scór blianta agus é ag déanamh ceilpe o bhí in ann. D'fhiafruigh mé dhe cén bharúil a bhí aige den obair seo a bhí ghá dhéanamh. Séard adubhairt sé: "Farior, nach bhfuil mé óg arís, mar má oibrigheann na daoine óga leath chó cruaidh agus d'oibrigh muide, tá an fíor-dheis acu anois. Ní bheidh ortha aon chall bheith ag imtheacht an tír amach."

Na staidenna beaga a rinneadh faoi'n bhóta seo déanfaidh siad maith an domhain leis na daoine do chur 'un cinn. Anois féadfa siad an fheamainn do chur amach ortha ar a gcuid báid agus í do thabhairt leo in a gcuid cairteannaí. Roimhe seo níorbh fhéidir seo do dhéanamh. Thug sé léargus an domhain do na ceilpeadóirí feamainn an gheimhridh do thriomú ar an mbealach nua, rud nár cheap siad ariamh go mb'fhéidir é dhéanamh agus go raibh go leor magaidh fútha a leithéide do dhéanamh. Tá a fhios acu anois gur féidir é dhéanamh mar tá sé cruthnuithe acu féin.

Mr. Lynch

Perhaps I should deal first with things which have been raised which do not pertain to the Estimate. The question of oyster culture and development is under consideration by a Committee of the Sea Fisheries Association. I think I pointed out when I was introducing the Bill transferring property to that Association that one particular director probably knows more about oysters and oyster culture than anybody else in the country—Mr. McGibbon, of Fenit. I know that these people are considering certain schemes to try and revive some of the beds which have been lying dormant for some years. I did not quite follow Deputy Little when he referred to the question of taking up the Chamagne methods of burning kelp into iodine. In fact, that is none of my business. My job is to act as agent for the gatherers, and I should like to stress that the Department are not buyers of kelp. We are not purchasing kelp except as the agents of the gatherers who are members of the Association. We are only their agents in purchasing kelp. My whole interest is to get the best price possible for kelp. After that, the iodine factories can find out what is the most economical way for them to turn the kelp into iodine. I am finished once I have got a purchaser for the kelp.

Mr. Little

Money is here being voted for the adoption of a new idea, namely, the raised kiln. So far as I can gather, the raised kiln belongs to one of the Chamagne processes.

Mr. Lynch

The raised kiln is to turn the seaweed into kelp, not kelp into iodine. That is a matter for the factory. I do not know whether the raised kiln was portion of M. Chamagne's methods or not, but, at any rate, it has been in use in this country for a great number of years. The Deputy must have misunderstood me when he stated that I said that this was the method used in Brittany. I said it was the method recommended by the Department. In fact it is not used in Brittany very much. Both systems of dealing with seaweed were in use side by side in this country— that is in the trench and on the kiln. The kiln method reduces the kelp into ash and the other into slabs. The people in the factory tell us that in future years they will not pay as much for kelp in the slab state as for kelp in the ash state. It creates extra trouble in the factory and extra cost. They have to grind the slabs when they come into the factory into ash or powder before it is converted into iodine. As far as M. Chamagne is concerned, therefore, I may say that the raised kiln was in use in this country before he ever came here.

Mr. Little

The Minister mentioned that the experts had been over in Brittany getting new ideas and it was with reference to that that I asked the question: why M. Chamagne's methods were not adopted and whether we would be allowed to see the experts' reports breaking off negotiations with M. Chamagne?

Mr. Lynch

I said an officer of the Department went over to Brittany in connection with the winter weed, which previously had been neglected in this country, while used extensively in Brittany. They wanted to see how they dealt with the winter weed in Brittany. I think Brittany could teach nothing so far as dealing with the ordinary weed is concerned. Except where adulteration took place, our people were just as expert at burning kelp as they were in Brittany —that is the May weed and the sea rods. It is the winter weed we are dealing with in this Estimate. Deputy Derrig asked why was it necessary to bring in this Estimate—why was it not included in last week's Estimate? Last week's Estimate was directly arising out of the taken Vote of £10 last year. This is something additional to that. It is, if you like, a Relief Vote. I mentioned at the start that I had hoped the money would be provided out of the Relief Vote, but the money had all been allocated to other Departments, such as the Land Commission, Local Government Department, the Board of Works and so on, before the details were supplied to the Department of Finance, so that we had to have a separate Vote for this particular expenditure.

As to whether or not this £12,000 is a dead loss is all according to the way you look at it. I do not consider it a dead loss by any means, because you have there permanent useful little works. You have these enclosures which can be used year after year; that is, if as a result of this year's experiment we discover that the kelp produced from the winter weed is worth bothering about. If it is not, naturally people will not take it up. If we are able to tell them that the kelp made from this is worth, say, £5 per ton, as we hope to, then I imagine that the people along the coast will take up the gathering of this winter weed and they will have these enclosures in which to stack it and the improved passages will remain. They are not for this year's expenditure alone. These things will remain. In fact I believe that we have £12,000 worth in the work that is done. We will not get back the £12,000 in cash. What we will get back in cash will be negligible. The proceeds of the kelp produced from the 3,000 tons of wet weed will be negligible because it would take a very large quantity of wet weed to produce one ton of kelp. It cannot be said that the expenditure of £365 on the transplanting of mussels is a dead loss. After all, they will be there for the mussel fishermen when the prohibition is removed. The mussels are being transplanted on a wide expanse so as to give them a chance to mature and develop. If the purification tank materialises, as I hope it will, the ban can be removed and the mussels again put on the market from Mornington, where there were about 120 men employed on this work for a while.

I said already that there is no prospect that the sale of the kelp produced from that 3,000 tons of weed would give anything near £12,000, but we have value instead. We have 176 enclosures; we have a few raised kilns. These will be an advantage, because very important experiments are being conducted by the chemist in the iodine factory in Galway which may revolutionise the whole process of kelp-burning, or at least the type of kiln. We have 176 enclosures. They are permanent works. As to the expenditure, it was spread over Counties Clare, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, Donegal, and for the mussels in County Meath. I am not concerned as to whether these should come under the heading of rural industries or fisheries. It does not make the slightest difference. I think they are more appropriate under the Fisheries Estimate, because it is very often persons who are part-time fishermen who engage in this kelp-gathering. They are fishermen in certain seasons and they are kelp gatherers at other times. At any rate, it does not make the slightest difference what label we give them.

Mr. Cassidy

Could the Minister say if the State Laboratory is conducting any research work into the possibility of manufacturing artificial manures out of seaweed? As the Minister is aware, imports of artificial manure are exceptionally large. During the weekend, as a result of conversations with kelp gatherers, I found they were under the impression that if the State Laboratory made some researches into this matter, there might be a big possibility with regard to the manufacture of these manures out of seaweed. Could the Minister give us any information as to whether he proposes to go along these lines or whether it has already been done?

Mr. Lynch

I do not really know.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

With regard to the kilns, I think the Minister said that an official of his Department went over to Brittany, and that he recommended certain things about the raised kiln?

Mr. Lynch

Yes.

Mr. Hogan

Do I understand the Minister to say that the raised kiln is only recommended for the burning of winter weed, as opposed to the burning of May weed?

Mr. Lynch

It is recommended for all.

Mr. Hogan

Then has the Department changed its mind as to the suitability of burning the weed on the flat? The Minister will remember that his Department was very keen on that.

Mr. Lynch

Not so much about burning it on the flat as not burning it in a trench. The raised kiln is an improvement on the flat. We wanted the kelp burners to get away from the trench method which produced the slab.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister has had evidence that the objection to burning on the flat was that some people said it was blown away like hay that was burnt, and that that was more or less a system that ought not to be gone on with. But the Department was keen on having the weed burned on the flat —that is to say, burnt into ash on the flat. Certain kelp burners were not enamoured of that process as the Department is probably aware. I want to know whether the Department has abandoned the idea of burning on the flat and is now favourable to the raised kiln?

Mr. Lynch

I answered that already. I said that burning on the flat was an improvement to burning in the trench, and that the raised kiln is an improvement to burning on the flat. I believe that even the particular type of raised kiln might be changed very considerably within the next twelve months.

Mr. Hogan

If the Minister is satisfied that the raised kiln is an improvement I am satisfied also. I only wanted to know where we were. The Minister said that there were 176 enclosures and kilns, and he said that these belonged to the people on whose land they were erected. That is rather a serious thing. Do I understand that nobody else will have recourse to these except the people on whose lands they are erected? That is likely to give rise to a position that will not be at all advantageous to the burning of kelp. Will nobody have recourse to these kilns except the people on whose lands they are erected?

Mr. Lynch

I said there were only a couple of raised kilns. The enclosures are erected mostly by people on their own drying ground, and they become the property of the people on whose grounds they are erected. Everyone of the kelp gatherers has a drying ground of his own, or if not, he makes some arrangement by which he can have the use of a drying ground, but they are the property of the persons on whose land they stand, or of the persons on whose drying grounds they are built.

Mr. Hogan

The kiln will also be the property of the person on whose land it was built?

Mr. Lynch

There are only two or three kilns built, so they are not worth considering at the moment.

Mr. Hogan

Were they built by the Department out of public money?

Mr. Lynch

Oh, yes.

Mr. Hogan

Then the question is worth considering.

Mr. Lynch

Our view is that each man should have his own kiln to dry his kelp.

Mr. Derrig

At your expense?

Mr. Lynch

Probably not. This will scarcely occur in another year.

Mr. Hogan

I would like every man to have his own kiln, but I do not know how it is that certain people have kilns and others have not.

Mr. Lynch

If they came within this scheme this year and happened to get raised kilns, that was their luck.

Mr. Derrig

When is the revaluation of the Loans Bill to be introduced?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is farther away than the oyster question.

Mr. Little

As to the improvement of the process of production perhaps as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is here he could tell us whether any of the Chamagne process is being taken over, whether this kiln is part of it or whether his ideas are being taken over. Further, whether the experts' report upon this process and upon which negotiations were finally broken off will be available for Deputies.

Mr. Lynch

The kelp business was not in my Department at that time and I do not know whether there are any such reports in any other Department.

Mr. Little

Is that the answer of the Minister for Industry and Commerce through the Minister for Fisheries?

Question put and agreed to.