Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Jun 1931

Vol. 38 No. 20

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 54—Fisheries and Gaeltacht Services.

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. Lynch)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £142,157 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tailte agus Iascaigh agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na hOifige sin, maraon le Deontaisí i dtaobh Tógála Tithe agus Ildeontaisí i gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £142,157 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, and of certain Services administered by that Office including Grants in connection with Housing and Sundry Grants in Aid.

The Vote for Fisheries and Gaeltacht Services shows a net increase of £95,727 over last year. Of this increase, however, some £72,500 is money required for capital purposes which must properly be regarded as an investment, and £20,000 represents an increase in the instalment of the total sum of £250,000 for housing in the Gaeltacht required this year as compared with last year. I think it may be convenient at once to indicate the items of increase which are of a capital nature. In sub-head E 2, item 2, there is a sum of £30,000 to be advanced to the new Sea Fisheries Association for the purpose of financing the supply by the Association of boats and gear, and repairing existing boats. In sub-head E 1 there is a small sum of £250 for winding up that service as far as the Department is concerned.

The whole of this provision of £30,250 represents money which will be advanced for the supplying of boats, which will be repaid by the borrowers. This is in effect money invested by the State in the fishing industry on which interest will be paid annually to the State. I had better mention that there is a printer's error in sub-head K, Appropriations-in-Aid. These should be under K, not J, in page 228 of the Estimates, and sub-head J should be I—that is the International Council for the Study of the Sea.

Under K 6, item 2, there was last year an Estimate of £6,500 for repayment of Fishery Loans, whereas a sum of £2,000 only is budgeted for this year. The reason for this is that it is intended that the majority of the outstanding debts, after a revision to which I shall refer later, shall be handed over to the Sea Fisheries Association for collection. The moneys which the Sea Fisheries Association will receive in this way will go to swell the funds for the supply of further boats, and interest will be paid to the State in respect of them. The difference of £4,500, therefore, must be regarded as money invested in the fishing industry.

Coming back again to sub-head E 2, Deputies will see under item 4 of that sub-head Advances for General Development, £20,000. These are advances to the Sea Fisheries Association. This sum is intended for loans for the purpose of capital expenditure in development. It may be spent, for instance, on the provision of lobster ponds, which are an important factor in the advantageous development of that branch of the sea-fishing industry or on the erection of a mussel purification tank, which is under consideration and which would render possible the re-establishment of that industry in many places where, owing to pollution, it is now extinct; or for any other works which may result in a fixed asset of value. Interest would be payable to the State on the moneys advanced for such purposes.

In sub-head G (E) there is a total sum of £20,000 for the purchase and handling of carrigeen moss. Then under sub-head K, item 7, there is only a sum of £15,000 estimated for the sales of carrigeen moss. This does not mean that there will be a loss of £5,000 on these operations. On the contrary although we have been able greatly to advance the prices of carrigeen to the gatherers we are still working on a very conservative financial basis and with an ample margin. When we sell carrigeen for industrial uses it is turned over quickly in bulk, and if we were doing that only the receipts would equal or exceed the expenditure.

We are, however, endeavouring to create as well a new and more profitable market for carrigeen as food, and that involves our carrying a stock so as to be able to maintain regular supplies all the year round. Deputies will probably be aware that the actual crop is obtainable only between May and September. The £5,000 difference between the estimated expenses and the estimated receipts represents what it is thought may be the value of the stock, including handlings, packing and other expenses at the 31st March next, and the value of the carrigeen which has been sold, but not actually paid for at that date.

The same observations apply to the difference between the sum of £40,000 under sub-head F. 1, item 5, the cost of materials for rural industries and that under sub-head K, item 5, for receipts from these industries of £30,000. There is a difference of £10,000 there. One has to provide for stocks of goods and for goods sold in the last quarter of the year and not actually paid for during the current financial year. That explains the discrepancy there. The £3,000 for industrial loans is also of a capital nature.

Summarising these items of increased capital expenditure we get:— Advances to Sea Fisheries Association to finance the supply of boats and gear, £30,000; repayment of existing loans which will go to the Association, £4,500; advances to the Sea Fisheries Association for general development, £20,000; stocks of carrigeen, £5,000; stocks of produce of rural industries, £10,000 and Industrial Loans, £3,000, making the total that I have mentioned before of £72,500.

Having made this explanation of the substantial causes of the larger increases in the Vote I will now deal with the several sub-heads in order. There is a net increase of £1,170 on sub-head A as a whole. Looking at the details, the salary of the Secretary has been advanced to the maximum of his scale as part of a general reorganisation of the Department affecting more particularly the Land Commission side.

On the general administrative staff an additional superintending officer has been appointed with special reference to the increasing activities of the Department in the Gaeltacht, and provision of £750 has been made for any increase of staff which may be required in this connection during the year, as compared with £100 last year. It is the intention that all the work of the Department, as far as the Gaeltacht is concerned, will at an early date be carried on entirely in Irish. On the general technical and outdoor staff there is a reduction of £2,021, due to the transfer of certain functions to the Sea Fisheries Association. In the Gaeltacht Housing Branch there is a provision of £6,431 as against £5,000 last year. The sum asked for last year was for provisional loans. The whole of this staff, both outdoor and indoor, is Irish-speaking, and the work is conducted throughout in the Irish language. The present staff is adequate to enable the housing programme to go forward as quickly as the available supply of skilled labour in the Gaeltacht will permit.

Under travelling expenses the increase of £2,700 is wholly attributable to the administration of the Gaeltacht Housing Act. There is an increase of £50 on incidental expenses, due to increased activities, and there is a saving of £25 on telegrams due to the transfers of works to the Sea Fisheries Association. There is an increase of £20 on telephones, due largely to the development of operations on the West coast. Under sub-head E 1 (Inland Fisheries) there is an apparent reduction of £39,230, but, as will be seen from a footnote, the provision for advances on kelp, for which £33,895 was taken under this sub-head last year, will in future be made under sub-head G. The true reduction of £5,335 is due to the transfer of the future responsibility for the supply of boats and for fishing operations to the Sea Fisheries Association.

In the same sub-head under inland fisheries there is an increase of £605, which is due to the provision of £400 for a proposed trout hatchery, and an additional expenditure of £150 in connection with State fishery rights. There is a small increase on other items. As far as the State fishery rights are concerned, you will see from the appropriations-in-aid that, in effect, we are making a small profit. There is a sum of £1,650 estimated for receipts, as against £1,450 last year.

Under sub-head E 2 (Grants-in-aid and advances to the Sea Fisheries Association) there is an increase of £61,700. The provision last year was for the tail-end of the year, during which period the Association had not an opportunity of getting properly to work. The first item of £10,000 under that heading is a grant-in-aid of the expenses of administration. The position of the Association is different from that of any other co-operative body of which we have had previous experience. It will have to create an organisation where none has previously existed. While I have no doubt that ultimately a substantial part of the expense of administration can fairly be passed on to the industry, I am satisfied that in the early stages the costs of administration may be comparatively higher than when development of the industry has taken place. I am very anxious that the Association should not in any way be hampered in its arrangements during its early years, and therefore I am not disposed to withhold any reasonable assistance under this head which the Committee may ask.

It is contemplated that this sum of £10,000 should meet the costs of the headquarters staff, the organisers, the area superintendents, and small fixed payments, in some cases to local agents, together with rents of premises, etc., during the year. To a considerable extent the remuneration of local agents will be by means of fixed commissions, auctioning fees, and similar payments which will be natural charges on the proceeds of fish sold. It will be borne in mind that a substantial part of the agent's duties will relate to the supply of boats and gear, the collection of contributions, and accounting for the proceeds, a duty hitherto performed to some extent by officers of the Department. The services of the Committee are, of course, given voluntarily. I will deal briefly in a few minutes with the position and the work of the Association.

I have already referred to items 2 and 4 of this sub-head—that is, the £30,000 and the £20,000. Item 3 represents a grant-in-aid of £5,000 for general development, in respect of which issues will be made only with the sanction of the Minister for Finance. This contemplates that some expenditure for development may be necessary which will not be immediately remunerative. For instance, it may be desirable to advertise, or the Association may decide to carry out an experiment in a particular method of handling or marketing fish, or it may wish to determine whether a particular class of fish which is caught in large numbers off the West Coast of Ireland, and for which there is a great demand in the fish market, could not be better transported across Ireland rather than have trawlers steaming to the British market and thereby losing three or four days on each voyage. Under this heading also the Association is contemplating some experiments in oyster propagation. These are experiments which must involve expense and will not yield an immediate and direct return, but they will lead ultimately to valuable results. That is the sort of purpose for which this sum of £5,000 is required.

Deputies will be interested to know how the work of the Association is progressing. I understand that a very comprehensive survey has been made by the Committee of all the branches of the industry. The rules which were laid on the Table of the House dealt mainly with provisions for assisting the inshore fishermen, but they are sufficiently wide to enable the Association to take action in any matter affecting any part of the industry. There are two outstanding facts which must strike anyone examining the general state of fishing in this country. The first is that the consumption of fish in this country is only a little over four pounds weight per head per annum of the population as against some thirty-two pounds per head in Great Britain. The second is that this country, though surrounded by fishing fields which are second to none in variety and quality of fish, is dependent for something like one-half of its present supplies of fresh fish on external sources.

The attention of the Committee was directed to these matters as it is obvious to anybody that that state of things is unnatural and ought to be remedied. I have always held that it was not a matter which could be successfully remedied by a Government Department, with all the limitations and handicaps which attach to its operation. The small consumption of fish in this country is not, in my view, unrelated to the fact that so great a proportion of the fish available comes to us from places at a considerable distance and is in a state sometimes very far from fresh when it reaches the consumer. It is also due to the fact that fish is practically unobtainable in many parts of the country. The Committee of the Association have, I understand, come to the conclusion that this part of the problem calls for immediate attention, not only from the point of view of the development of what ought to be a great national resource, but also because they regard it as a necessary first step in the development of inshore fisheries.

There is a disposition in some quarters to regard the industry of steam trawling as opposed to the interests of the inshore fishermen. Such a view is, I am satisfied, a short-sighted and mistaken one. The inshore fisheries can never hope in themselves to provide the quantity or regularity of supplies which are required if the public are to get the fish they want all the year round. In Great Britain something less than ten per cent. of the fish supplies is obtained from the inshore fisheries. That is a small proportion but in the aggregate it is a large quantity. On the analogy of Great Britain I estimate that if the consumption of fish in this country were fully developed the catch of white fish in our inshore fisheries ought to be increased by 125 per cent. It is not only that the quantity of fish caught in the inshore fisheries would tend to increase as a result of the putting of the industry on a properly organised basis, but the prices paid for the fish would also be immediately improved.

At present fish has frequently to be sent long distances to a market, and is as a rule not sent to that market in a condition to preserve its freshness and appearance. As a result, the fish caught by inshore fishermen, which is only a short time out of the sea and ought to command the highest price, fetches in fact a much lower price than trawler-caught fish. Moreover, it has had to pay carriage to the distant market.

Now, the most important factor leading to this result is the absence of any real organisation or machinery in this country for the economic distribution of fish supplies. There can be no remedy until such an organisation is brought into being. It would be idle at this date to inquire why there has not been the normal development in this direction here which has taken place in other countries, that is, a provision of proper wholesale agencies for the industry itself. The more important matter is that we should set about putting it right. The committee of the Association are, I understand, at close grips with this problem, and are already moving forward to its solution. Deputies will understand that in embarking on a project of this importance care and caution in preparation are most necessary. I have a feeling, however, that when the plans of the Association are complete we may look with some confidence for quick results.

The position of fisheries at the moment may be described that the disease has been diagnosed. The remedies and the method of their application are matters for the Association. I am only concerned to see that the Association receives all the support by me in its efforts that may be necessary.

I should like to say, however, that we shall rely on the whole-hearted co-operation of everybody concerned in this matter in the fishing industry and outside it. There is nobody concerned in the catching of fish, in the transport of fish, or in the sale of fish, who will not be benefited by the expansion of the industry to its proper dimensions. On selfish as well as national grounds, therefore, it will be in everybody's interest to give his fullest co-operation.

While these measures are on foot the other steps necessary to prepare the way for development of the inshore fisheries are not being neglected. Members are already, I understand, joining in large numbers along the east, south and south-west coasts, where the organisation has already been undertaken and a great many of the local agents have already been appointed in those areas. The enrolment of members along the west and northwest coasts will begin next week. Two special Irish-speaking organisers are being appointed for the specific purpose of holding meetings to explain the scheme and to enrol members. Arrangements are on foot for the supply of boats and in this connection the Association are desirous of encouraging the adoption of types of boats which have been found from experience to offer the best prospects of economic employment on the different parts of the coast. They do not want a repetition of the experiences of the past, when fishermen saddled themselves with responsibility for large boats which had little hope of paying their way. This is all the more important as the industry has not yet fully emerged from a transitional state in which power-driven vessels are replacing the old types and progress has to be made with caution. It is not only the type and size of boat which are important but also the type of the engine to be used in relation to the size of the boat. Where experience has shown a particular class of boat to be generally suitable, subject to minor variations in draught to suit local conditions, the Association proposes, as far as practicable, to standardise the type of engine and to secure the most satisfactory engine in point of cost, durability, and ease and economy in running. The local agents of the Association will be responsible for taking the fish that is caught and for sending it in proper condition to its market under the arrangements made by the Committee.

Special branches of the industry are receiving consideration also. I have mentioned that there is under consideration the provision at a convenient centre of a purification plant for mussels as a preliminary to the opening up and development of this industry at points where, owing to pollution, it had disappeared.

The question of storage ponds for lobsters is under examination.

An experiment in oyster propagation is on foot. Oysters give off spat plentifully only in a really warm summer, and the young oyster is liable to very heavy mortality in a severe winter. The uncertain weather of this country constitutes an adverse climatic condition, which is held in many quarters to render uneconomic the cultivation of oysters in this country as distinct from the fattening of imported oysters, which is largely carried on. The Association has arranged, however, to carry out a practical experiment this summer, and to test some of the more recent methods employed in other countries. The view of the Committee is that, without being unduly sanguine, there is justification for the carrying on of research and experiment on this subject.

The Association are, I think, setting about their important task with a proper appreciation of its difficulties, and equally with the necessary confidence to overcome them.

Before leaving this sub-head, I should like to add that agreement has been reached as to the review of outstanding fishery loans. The amount to be written off is £98,000, and the number of cases is 780 odd. The amount outstanding, I might mention, was a little over £120,000. The writing off there will leave a sum of only £22,000 outstanding. The preparation of the necessary legislation in regard to this matter is in the hands of the Parliamentary Draughtsman. I am hoping that I will at least have the Second Reading of the Bill before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Derrig

Might I ask the Minister if he can state what proportion of that £98,000 is attributable to old loans?

Mr. Lynch

I could not give anything like an accurate figure at the moment. Perhaps, in my reply, I will be able to give some estimate. I will undoubtedly be able to give the figure during the passing of the necessary legislation. I regard the completion of this matter as an important factor in enabling the industry to make a fresh start freed from any crippling legacies from the past.

This brings me to sub-head E (3), relating to the cost of maintenance of the patrol boat, which shows an increase of £600 on the provision last year. On this subject I am not going to say more than this: I recognise that the present patrol of the territorial waters is not all that might be desired; that when we have, as I anticipate we shall have very soon, a fishing industry showing signs of rapid expansion, I can with greater confidence contemplate the heavy expense which an adequate patrol must involve; that the existence of the Association, with a network of agents round the coast, may be an important factor in determining the best and most economic method of patrol, and I shall take the opportunity of consulting the Committee of the Association on the vexed question of the most effective method of patrol, as to which there is a great variety of views among persons well informed and less well informed.

In addition, there is among the many draft Bills in the hands of the Parliamentary Draughtsmen one dealing with the whole question of the territorial waters. I do not hope to introduce that before the autumn. I am waiting on the other Bill as the more necessary one, because I feel some of the fishermen around the coast may show some signs of reluctance to enter an organisation until this matter of fishery loans is definitely fixed.

Sub-head F (1) deals with the provision for rural industries. The increase of £33,560 is required for the expansion of the production of existing centres and the opening of new centres, and, as I have mentioned already, for the provision of stocks of goods at the depot. Of the 17 new centres proposed, five have already been opened, and seven are well advanced. The handwoven tweeds have for some time now been on the market, and have met with a very satisfactory reception. Production is the main problem at the moment. Weavers are, however, coming in now in large numbers. There are at the moment upwards of thirty qualified weavers, principally at Kilcar and Ardara, in County Donegal, who are continuously employed, and upwards of sixty weavers in training at those centres and at Glencolmbcille and Gortahork in County Donegal, at Carraroe in County Galway, and at Ballydavid in County Kerry. Weavers have also been trained at Dunlewy, who chose to work on their own account and not for the Department. An additional centre is about to be opened at Tourmakeady in County Mayo. The manufacture of knitted goods has now also been organised on an industrial footing. The samples are in the hands of the depot's travellers, and this winter I look for the creation of a public demand for these goods.

An effort is being made to re-establish the embroidery industry which, for several reasons, not the least of which has been the competition of machine-made and cheap hand-embroidery from other countries, has practically disappeared. Steps are being taken to lift the standard of design and workmanship so as to place the embroidery of the Gaeltacht on a plane much above its competitors with a corresponding improvement in the prices and rates of pay. It remains to be seen whether this policy will meet with success, but it seems to me, and this view is shared by persons experienced in the industry, that it offers the most hopeful policy directed to permanent re-establishment and improvement of this industry, in which there are large numbers of partially-skilled workers now unemployed.

Poplin weaving has been established as a new industry at Anagry, in County Donegal, but it will be some time before any substantial results can be looked for. Thirteen boys are at present being trained and are making satisfactory progress. Sub-head F 2 relates to the expenses of the Central Marketing Depôt. There is an increase of £381, which is principally accounted for by a provision of £300 for additional staff likely to be required during the year. On the general expenses for freight, postage, packing, etc., and advertising, there is an increase of £1,900. The depôt was established in the course of the last financial year and it had not got into its stride. Its operations have now begun to grow and the increase is in respect of this growth. The expenses in advertising, samples, patterns, showcards, etc., in connection with the various branches of the business are naturally heavy when the goods are being first put upon the market.

In sub-head F 3, relating to domestic instruction in the Gaeltacht, there is only a variation of £10 above last year's figure. The sub-head relates to the employment of three ladies, who visit the houses of the people in the Gaeltacht and give instruction and guidance in cleanliness, cooking, etc.

In sub-head F 4, there is a provision of £3,000 for loans for industrial purposes. This is used for financing the supply of looms for weaving, small knitting machines for use in the cottages, horses and carts for use in the kelp industry and similar purposes.

Sub-head G relates to Marine Products Industries, which includes kelp and carrigeen, and may later include other marine growths. There is under (a) of the sub-head a provision of £936 for the salaries of an organiser and six instructors in kelp and under (b) a provision of £1,000 for their expenses. These officers are required to supervise and give instruction in the collection of the proper weeds, the saving and stacking of the weed and its subsequent burning, and they are also required to encourage the re-establishment of the industry in districts where it has been abandoned and its starting in districts where it has not previously been followed. Research and experiment in this industry are being continuously carried on. Recently I brought in an estimate for certain works carried out to some extent as a matter of relief which included the provision of enclosures on the Breton model for the saving of winter weed. The winter weed, as I mentioned, is thrown up in large quantities and had hitherto been allowed to go to waste because it was believed that it would not make a kelp of any value. On examination of the Breton practice, and on such other data as I had, I was sufficiently confident that this weed would yield a kelp of the value of at least £5 a ton. I felt justified in erecting some enclosures, about forty feet by twenty, all along the coast for the purpose of developing the use of this weed. The price of £5 a ton would not be a handsome one, but I felt that it would justify the labour in gathering the weed during the winter months when no other employment was available.

I have in the last few days received the State Laboratory report on the kelp made from winter weed of which quite a substantial quantity was collected and stored in some of these enclosures. I am glad to admit that I greatly under-estimated the value of this weed. The reports show that winter weed saved and burnt in the manner in which we have treated it will yield a kelp worth not less than £10 a ton. They demonstrate that in fact this weed, which is available in great quantities and which has hitherto gone to waste, is one of the most valuable weeds for kelp making.

I need not emphasise the importance of this discovery—the most important discovery which has been made since we took up the subject. It means that the making of kelp will become an all-the-year-round occupation, and that the income of the kelp-maker can be more than doubled. I am sure that this result will afford every member of the House as great satisfaction as it has afforded me.

This kelp has been under the direct supervision of the Department's officers and in accordance with their directions, but every operation has been carried out by men who are themselves kelp-makers and there is no reason why it should not be repeated by every kelp-maker on the coast.

I confidently anticipate that in the coming winter very little of this weed will be allowed to go to waste. There are other directions also in which we are endeavouring by research to increase the value of kelp. I feel that we have now got the industry on a basis which will lead to a steady advance in the quality as well as in the quantity of the output. The sum of £44,750 asked for under (d) of the sub-head is for the payments to be made to the kelp-makers for their kelp and the expenses of the agents, including commission, storage and loading on vessels, freight charges, bags and other stores. The expenditure under this head must depend largely on the total output of kelp handled by the Department and its destination. This year I am glad to say that with the exception of parts of Donegal the May weed has been thrown up in good quantities, and the total output promises to be a great advance on last year.

There is the additional factor that last year the whole of the kelp was not sold through the Department's organisation. It was the first year in which the scheme had been put into operation. I am not sure that it was everywhere fully understood. Moreover, certain buyers of kelp elected not to avail of the organisation for the purchase of their kelp, though I am glad to say that they paid prices last year which were perfectly satisfactory prices, in many cases very much beyond those which had ever been paid before.

That was all to the good, but if we are to secure the stability and progress in the industry at which we aim it is desirable that the Department should be the agency for the sale of the whole of the output of kelp in the country. In that way only will it be possible to ensure the attainment and maintenance of the highest standard of quality and to ensure that the best price shall be paid.

The organisation is co-operative in character, and entry into the scheme is quite voluntary. Co-operation, however, has its obligations as well as its advantages. The Department in making arrangements for the disposal of the kelp must be able with some degree of accuracy to estimate the quantity which it will have to handle. It must have some assurance of the quality and freedom from adulteration of the product. This year, therefore, every kelp-maker must make up his mind whether he desires to enter the organisation or to remain outside. If he decides to enter, he must undertake to dispose of the whole of his kelp through the agency of the Department. If he should elect for any reason to remain outside, he must not expect to-reap the benefits while he declines the obligations.

There can now be no doubt in any quarter that the intervention of the Department in the industry is permanent, and that in the interests of the individual as well as in that of the industry as a whole every kelp-maker should enrol himself. I have no doubt myself as to the decision which will be taken this season by those kelp-makers not already in the scheme. If Deputies will look at item 6 in the Appropriations-in-Aid they will see that the estimated receipts fall short of the expenditure by some £3,750. That is due to several reasons. Bags, for instance, which form a substantial part of the £2,000 for stores, last four years and therefore only one-fourth of their cost is properly chargeable to the particular year of purchase. A margin has been allowed for new districts in which the quantity of kelp produced may not warrant separate shipment and for some possible loss on the operations generally this year. Item (E) of the sub-head provides £20,000 for payments in respect of carrigeen and expenses in connection with the handling, packing and transport.

The price of carrigeen, which was advanced last year from 1/- to 1/6 and then to 2/- a stone, has this year been fixed at 2/6 a stone for good carrigeen well cared for, and 2/- for good average carrigeen. I do not regard these figures as high water mark, but they will, I anticipate, give a great impetus to the collection of the carrigeen. The work last season was undertaken on a limited experimental scale and the quantity obtained was far short of the demand for industrial uses, but it is proposed this season to extend the operations of the Department to the whole western coast line. The distribution in the Saorstát of the carrigeen packed for sale as food has been placed in the hands of one of the leading wholesale grocers. The publicity scheme is at present in preparation in consultation with them and the supply to the public will be begun about the latter end of July, when I anticipate that this season's carrigeen will be available to maintain regular supplies.

Under sub-head H a sum of £80,000 is provided for grants under the Gaeltacht Housing Act. The total number of applications decided up to Saturday last was 2,203, of which 1,473 were sanctioned and the remainder disallowed or deferred for various reasons. The total amount of grants sanctioned is £89,672, the average grant being £61. In addition loans which are provided for elsewhere— that is, under the Board of Works Vote—have been sanctioned up to the amount of £38,899. The average loan sanctioned in those cases in which loans have been applied for has been £36 odd. Of the total amount of £250,000 authorised for grants and loans, there has already been sanctioned £128,571, and, at the present rate of progress, I anticipate that the whole amount will have been earmarked within the next six months, before which time it will be necessary to consider the position. The money cannot, of course, be spent as rapidly as applications are sanctioned. The average time taken by an applicant to erect his house is from twelve to eighteen months. I do not think that as a matter of practical politics it will be possible to secure any more rapid progress of the building operations during the year than is represented by the provision of £80,000 for grants.

Sub-head I, which relates to a provision of £6,000 for the erection of official residences for teachers in the Gaeltacht, is, I notice, not included in the details of the Vote on page 228, but it will be found on page 222. One of the obstacles which have stood in the way of the acceptance of appointments in the Gaeltacht by the best qualified teachers has been the absence of satisfactory housing accommodation. There have been in the past facilities for the provision of official residences for teachers which have been largely availed of elsewhere in the country but not to any great extent in the Gaeltacht, except perhaps Kerry. It is desired to remedy this matter at once in the Fior-Gaeltacht in the cases of those schools in which Irish is the language wholly or mainly in use, in order that, so far as difficulties of accommodation are militating against these schools securing the best available teachers, that educational handicap shall be removed. As Deputies are aware, other steps are being taken by the Minister for Education to attract well-qualified teachers to those schools. It is proposed that in the case of the larger schools a five-roomed house should be provided and in the case of the smaller schools, frequently under the charge of an unmarried lady teacher, a three-roomed house should be built. The number of five-roomed houses contemplated by the Estimate is ten and the number of three-roomed houses six, and these are to be built this year.

There is no variation in the pro- vision under sub-head J, relating to our membership of the International Council for the Study of the Sea. Under Appropriations-in-Aid there is a total increase of £63,500. In item No. 2, relating to repayments of fishery loans, there is a reduction of £4,500 owing to the proposed transfer of the collection in the majority of cases to the Sea Fisheries Association. In item No. 3—receipts from lettings of sporting rights, etc.,—there is a casual increase of £50. In item 4, being repayment of the salaries of officers seconded to the Sea Fisheries Association, there is an increase of £400 due to the repayment of the salary of the principal officer in question, i.e., the Secretary of the Association, being for a whole year instead of for a part of a year.

The increase of £26,500 under (5) in receipts from the sale of the products of the rural industries is accounted for by the anticipated expansion in the sales of the goods of those industries which is now taking place through the Central Marketing Depôt. The increase of £26,800 under (6)—receipts from sales of kelp— contemplates a considerable increase in the output this year and also provides for the whole output being handled by the Department. There is an increase of £14,000 under (7)— receipts from sales of carrigeen. The organisation of the industry last year, as I have already mentioned, was experimental only and was confined to Connemara. The results have justified its extension all round the West Coast this year and it is contemplated that this step and the improvement in prices effected will lead to considerable development. I have explained that the difference between the estimated receipts during the year and the expenditure under sub-head G, item (E) will be represented by stocks of packaged carrigeen for sale as food. Item 8—Miscellaneous receipts, £250—relates to repayments for looms, small machines, etc., previously included in item 5.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Mr. Derrig

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. If one were not acquainted with the record of the Fishery Department one would certainly be affected by the incurable optimism that the Minister has shown during the past few seasons. I do not think that there is anything in the fishing industry itself that can have caused this strange optimism. All the prospects seem, unfortunately, to be pretty bad. If that optimism is to any extent accounted for by the fact that we on this side of the House have shown ourselves prepared to co-operate with the Minister in any effort he is making for the advancement of the Gaeltacht, and particularly its economic development, the optimism may be to some extent justified. The Minister has gone into a large number of details in this Estimate, and undoubtedly it has grown to rather formidable proportions. When we consider that the Minister is responsible for the Land Commission; in addition, that he has to face the task of the reorganising of the fishing industry, that he has the development of rural industries in hand, that he has a very comprehensive housing scheme, that he has new services, such as the marine products industry, for which he is also accountable, it will be seen that the critic will have no lack of ammunition. No matter how optimistic or enthusiastic the Minister in charge of such a Department may be, undoubtedly his critics will find much to grumble with. The Minister is not the only person responsible for Gaeltacht policy. The whole of the Executive Council are responsible for it, and in putting down this motion I think that a fairly strong case can be made, in spite of the efforts that the Minister can certainly point to, to show that the problem of the Gaeltacht is really not being seriously tackled and that these efforts, good and all as they are, will not solve the problem.

The Gaeltacht Commission made a number of recommendations which were in some cases accepted, in some cases turned down, and in other cases the Government promised to consider the matter. On the question of afforestation, for example, which we discussed last night, the Government undoubtedly promised that something would be done in the Gaeltacht areas. It is only now, however, that a start is being made, and it is a very feeble and very circumscribed effort. In the same way we have already dealt on the Land Commission Vote with the policy in regard to land settlement, and those who have listened to the debate will know how far the Government are going in planting the people of the Gaeltacht on the land, how much money will probably have to be expended to carry out even the present policy of reclamation, and to what extent that expenditure will really ameliorate the position. I have pointed out that I thought that expenditure was very questionable indeed.

There is another matter that I have called attention to in a recent discussion here, and that is the general medical services in the Gaeltacht. It seems to me that they have been absolutely neglected. The Minister is responsible, because he is really the coordinating authority. I understand from the recent report issued by the Fisheries Department for the years 1926, 1927, 1928 that under his chairmanship a committee, representing the different Government departments, have been meeting fortnightly and going into the whole question of the Gaeltacht. When we discuss these matters, we must bear in mind that all these questions should have been gone into by this time and a fairly good policy should have been in operation. If you have a committee of such a character working over two or two-and-a-half years, and meeting fortnightly—if they are in earnest it seems to me that anything that is known about conditions in the Gaeltacht must be known to them. They must have taken the entire circumstances of the particular matters that they are to attend to into consideration; and if they have not at this stage produced a policy, it seems to me to indicate an absolute failure on the part of the Government. Nothing whatever has been done to improve the medical services in the Gaeltacht.

Now, with regard to the fishing industry, I have always stated that undoubtedly the Board charged with the new organisation is faced with a very grave problem. The fishing industry is everywhere in a state of collapse, and is suffering from the most acute depression. Nevertheless, as the Minister has stressed, we are ourselves to some extent responsible, because we are importing an unusually large and increasing amount of fish from foreign sources. I think that during the past year we imported something like £356,000 worth, whereas our exports, in the years 1926, 1927 and 1928 with which the Fishery Report deals, ran to a figure of £400,000. They have fallen very considerably. For example, last year as compared with the preceding year the fall in the exports of cured herring seems to have been something like 50 per cent., amounting to £54,000, and other cured fish fell similarly, so that as well as importing more we are exporting less. In fact, the industry as far as the last two years are concerned is in a very bad condition indeed. It has been pointed out that the report which dealt with the 1926, the 1927 and the 1928 seasons and which was certainly very belated as we only got it two years after the event, would be more valuable if the Minister had included in it some kind of summary of the fishing industry in the past two years. It would then be seen that any improvement effected during the three years reported upon was practically offset by the bad conditions during the two past years.

The Minister has declared that the new Association will have nothing whatever to do with the deep sea fisheries. I think if the new Association were contemplating a huge modern organisation which was going to go in for deep sea fishing the Dáil would have good grounds for giving it the fullest possible latitude to explore the entire question. But when it is a question merely of organising the inshore fisheries, when the whole question is undoubtedly within reach, and when all the factors are known, it seems to me that the progress that has been made is very poor indeed. I admit that the Act is not long in operation, but the Association has been spoken of for a very considerable time. Surely the Minister who wants the House to grant a very large sum this year for the Association does not think that he is treating it fairly, simply by telling us that the Association has carried out a survey of the position. We can all do that, and undoubtedly surveys are very useful. You must survey the ground before you proceed to build upon it. Notwithstanding that, I think the Minister should have something definite in the way of achievement to report to us. There is nothing whatever to report.

In the case of inland marketing, we gave the Minister certain facilities under that Act to license fish-shops throughout the country. We have no evidence whatever to show that anything real has been done to create the organisation of inland marketing that he talked so much about. It is all very well to be enthusiastic and to ask for large sums of money. Before these sums are granted it is surely the duty of the Minister to tell us what has been done. If he cannot tell us that something definite has been done to organise the inshore fisheries and in connection with distribution in the Free State, then what on earth has the Association been doing up to the present? I wish that the Minister had given us further particulars with regard to the sum of £10,000 for overhead expenses. It is only natural that the large amount of money granted to the Association should be given in the form of a grant-in-aid. That precludes the kind of criticism that could be offered if the money were granted in the ordinary way. It is not for the purpose of offering criticism that I would like to have more information. I want the information so that I may know whether proper foundations are being laid and that everything is being done in the most economical and business-like way, as well as to ascertain what exactly is covered by that sum of £10,000.

In proportion to the sum allocated for development, £10,000 is a large sum. We must remember that every expense that is created by this new Association will be an additional burden on the State, as I pointed out last year, in so far as we still have to keep a very large staff in the Department itself. We must, therefore, see that any new expenditure in the way of creating new offices is absolutely necessary before we agree to it. I think it is the duty of the House to see that only what is absolutely necessary is granted.

The question of the fisheries reminds me that in England and other countries where the fishing industry is in a state of great depression at the present time they seem to have come to the conclusion, in the first place, that the home market should be reserved, and secondly that if the fishing industry is to be rescued from its present position the fish must be offered to the public in far better condition, in a more prepared condition, than has hitherto been the case. It would be a great pity if, in any development that may take place here, we failed to do our best to be absolutely up to date. I think the Department have shown commendable enterprise as regard the packages in which, under their new scheme, they propose to offer carrigeen moss to the public. I think if they had gone a step further and had put the carrigeen moss in the form of food in which, if I may say so, it would be more readily available for cooking purposes, they would have approached nearer to what the lady of the house requires. If they had done that it would probably get a better sale. The same applies in the case of the fisheries. In England they are thinking of packing their fish in tins or in containers. It seems to me that development will be in that direction in the future. Our new organisation I think should take cognisance of it, and should try to be as up to date as possible.

In regard to the marketing of fish I have always been of opinion that a great deal could be done by the use of motor transport in covering the area of the Free State. There is another matter that affects the working of the Association, and that is the question of the harbours. The Port and Harbours Tribunal recommended that small harbours should be administered by the county councils. The sea fisheries conference which the Minister had previously set up, recommended the State to take them over. I would like to know if any decision has been come to in that matter, or when the responsible authorities propose to introduce legislation to deal with it. It is a matter that, I take it, the new Association will be interested in.

The question of the arrears of loans is one on which I have always taken a great interest. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee it is my duty unfortunately to have to go over this matter this year. These loans have been accumulating and have now grown to a great volume indeed. Deputies whose constituents owe large sums of money have, naturally, been querulous. Apparently the setting up of the Association has at last forced the Ministry to come to a decision on this matter. Some Deputies, I have no doubt, will criticise the wiping off of such a large sum of money. I do not intend to go into the matter very fully here. We shall probably have a full-dress debate on it later. All that I will say now is that I am glad a decision has been come to and that the Minister has taken his courage in his hands and taken the action he has taken. These arrears were written up in the books as representing a certain liability to the State. They did not, in fact, represent anything like that. The Minister has wiped off the debts that were due where these were irrecoverable, and where he satisfied himself—I think he said he examined each case on its merits—that in the 780 cases referred to there were no grounds for believing that anything could be recovered. In spite of the losses that seemed to accrue to the State as a result of that I think it is better that the matter should be settled beyond dispute and be definitely closed. It is far better to have security, and to feel that you are giving the new Association every opportunity to start under the most favourable auspices. Later on, if the Association does not take advantage of the different things the State is doing for it, then we will have a word to say to the Association. In regard to this whole matter, the attitude of the Minister was well summed up in his statement that he felt owing to the operations of the Association up to the present that the disease had been diagnosed. The disease has been diagnosed over and over again, sometimes by good doctors, sometimes by bad doctors, and sometimes, I have no doubt, by quacks. At any rate it has been diagnosed, but diagnosing a disease is one thing and curing is another. My anxiety is that the Minister should give more attention to the cure.

With regard to co-operation in the work of the Association, the Minister has stressed the fact that large numbers have joined it. I am not au fait with the work of the Association, but as well as the fishermen members I would like to see the business community in the various fishing ports interested. While I desire, of course, to leave the matter as much as possible in the hands of the fishermen, I hope that an effort—and the Minister has made an effort to get the business community represented on the boards —will be made in the new centres where he proposes to start operations to get the co-operation of the business community and get them interested. I hope he will not be in the position, which I think is perhaps the great defect in the whole scheme, of being absolutely dependent on his own officials to keep in touch with the situation. No matter how good officials may be, or how hard-working, we all know that there are local factors and circumstances that escape them. I am very strongly of the opinion my friend Deputy Law has so often voiced in this House, that one of the best safeguards for an enterprise of this kind, which is very hazardous from a commercial point of view, is to have the largest possible advice and consultation with local people and to try to have them interested.

The Minister also referred to the question of the boats, but he gave no information. I notice from the English Press that the heavy oil-engine seems to have come to stay in the fishing industry as well as in the transport industry generally, and I would be glad to know whether the Minister is going to take advantage of the recent changes in transport methods to get up-to-date boats. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he proposed to develop the oyster and lobster trade. These are examples of the smaller sidelines, where, nevertheless, great benefits could accrue and considerable advantage result to the communities where they are established and developed. I am not clear about the loans which are to be collected by the Sea Fisheries Association. Am I to understand that after the 780 cases have been disposed of the remaining cases will be handed over?

Mr. Lynch

Yes.

Mr. Derrig

I think the Minister said that the £4,500 would accrue to the Association. How does that amount compare with the loans outstanding? Does the £4,500 represent the full annuities on the amount due in cases where the Fishery Association is to be made responsible for collection? If the loans are handed over to the Association it is to be presumed that these are only good loans that the Ministry is satisfied can be collected. Now that the matter is being dealt with, and the slate wiped clean, I am anxious to know whether these loans are loans which the Minister can guarantee as being reputable ones, and that it is not a case simply, as the saying goes, of handing over the baby to the Association.

The Minister has promised to introduce a Bill to deal with this matter of loans, as he feels that they would be a considerable handicap in the building up of the Association. But is it not also a considerable handicap in the way of the work of the Association that the question of extra-territorial jurisdiction is still left in abeyance? If the Bill is in the hands of the draughtsman and if a decision has been reached upon it, in view of the large amount of time given to discussions of it on the Estimates, and on other occasions in the House, surely the Minister can give a definite promise that he will introduce this Bill? Otherwise the question of protection will continue to be brought up and debated at length. On this, as on other matters, I think delay is very harmful. It is much better to get the thing settled and let the Association go on its way.

With regard to rural industries, the Minister told us that we will be on the wrong side financially in respect not alone of rural industries but also marine products industries. I wish the Minister in his statement had reported on the working of these different branches of the Department. As I said, the fishery report is out of date, and we have very little information regarding the work of the other branches of the Department. The Minister has set up new centres. He is buying very large quantities of material and installing machinery. The setting up of new centres is certainly a very welcome step forward although new centres in certain areas may not be very successful from the commercial point of view. There is no reason why they should not be successful in the majority of areas where there is good experience, good workers and a good tradition. We must make an excuse for the new areas, but in the older areas I think an effort should be made to get things on a commercial basis by trying to make these industries self-supporting.

It has been suggested to me that in this matter, as in other matters, times have changed a great deal, and that we may not be able to go back to the old idea of cottage industries. I do not think anyone thinks we could do so in view of modern conditions. It is therefore a very good sign to see the Minister installing machinery, but I was surprised when he stated that some of the industrial loans were for horses and cars and for looms and knitting machines. If he means to make the industries pay, and if he means to make them permanent I think he should go further, and install more up-to-date machinery and try to put the industries on an up-to-date basis. Naturally we must be restricted by our means, but in some of the areas I think machinery could with advantage be installed. If you have not machinery to fall back upon in times of depression, a sudden change in fashions, as has happened before, may plunge our rural industries in the Gaeltacht into depression, and in fact may close them down.

I think it would be a great safeguard if we spent more money on capital expenditure. I stress that fact because the Ministry are depending to a great extent on fashion in this country. They think that fashion will go the way they want it and that the ladies in the Free State will probably assist them in buying Gaeltacht homespuns and having them made up. I doubt if that will happen. I see great difficulties, even if you get a substantial amount of support in the Free State, in going outside and getting a high-class market. From what I have heard the Department are to a large extent depending on building up a high-class market. The Minister has told us that experts have considered the matter of Donegal homespuns and are quite satisfied that they are an excellent product and so on. I have no reason really to criticise the product, but I think that the Minister is, perhaps, too optimistic and is hoping for too much. It is the same in the case of kelp. He informs the House—a thing which we were very glad to hear— that the State Laboratory authorities have informed him that £10 per ton is the value of the winter weed which has been neglected up to the present. The point I wish to make is that it is not the duty of the Minister to make promises to the House or to lead the House to expect that wonderful things can be done which in reality may never come to pass.

We were told, for instance, that the kelp industry was going to be self-supporting, but it has not turned out to be self-supporting. While I do not desire to deny the Minister the credit for its development, I would prefer if he tried to make it self-supporting and if he came to the House and said: "I have paid a very good price and have not been at a loss. I have paid a good proportion of the overhead expenses as well, and can point out to the House that in asking for money for the coming year I am not asking for it on a losing proposition, because I believe that it is a paying proposition and will remain so." That should be the attitude of the Minister. The same should hold in the case of the Donegal homespuns. I would much rather if the Minister waited for some time, when he would be sure of his ground and had definite results to show in the way of sales, which he has not mentioned up to the present, before leading us to believe that great things are going to happen. We do not ask for a lot, but we ask that the money will be spent in the most economical way and with due regard to business considerations. It should be carried out as far as possible as a business proposition, but during a period like the present, when so much of the work of the Department is directed towards organisation and building up and trying to bring the industries to fruition, I think it is a mistake on the part of the Minister to tell us that everything is going swimmingly.

It would be better to tell us that we are running these industries at a definite loss, that we lost so much last year, that we may lose less this year, but that we are moving in the right direction. The Minister has not stated what we are losing on these industries, and he should be more candid with the House. In regard to the help industry, which was to have been self-supporting, I find that, leaving out the expenses of an organising officer, a kelp instructor, and travelling and incidental expenses, the expenditure on the kelp industry amounted to £44,750. Even that sum is not covered by the appropriations-in-aid, which would be about £3,750 short. If you add in all the overhead expenses you would be about £5,000 short, so that really the position is that the country is losing about £5,000 on the kelp industry. A certain amount of these overhead expenses may, however, be attributed to the development of the carrigeen industry. In that case, although the Minister has made a definite arrangement for handing the weed over to a firm who will undertake to distribute it, and although last year he indicated that he hoped to sell it in America— perhaps that was the reason that it was packed in its present form, because he indicated last year that he expected to dispose of 100,000 boxes—he now talks of the very large stocks which it is necessary to maintain. In spite of all these promises made last year and this year, and of the arrangements which have been made, the carrigeen side of the industry is not paying, and there will be a definite definite of something like £5,000, according to the estimate.

As regards the central depôt, most members of the House were glad to have it set up, because it seemed necessary to have a department which would try and get markets for these small industries in the Gaeltacht. It seemed necessary also to have more attention given to the work of designing, and that the industry should be kept in touch with modern fashion conditions and kept up-to-date. It is extraordinary that the Minister has given no indication of the work of the central depôt since it was established. He simply comes along and looks for an additional large sum of money, but does not tell us what work the central depôt has done. It is characteristic of the Minister that, having set up an organisation to do a certain thing, he thinks that the work is complete, whereas it is only beginning then, and I can assure him that it is then that people who are interested in the matter will study it closely. They are prepared to give whatever facilities are necessary to set up the organisation, but when it is set up they want information as to what it is doing. We cannot continue to grant money unless we know what is being done. He is looking for, roughly, £400 more in salaries for the central depôt, for the same number of officers as last year, and for an increased item of over £2,000 in all.

A considerable amount of the increase goes to general expenses in connection with freight, stationery, and so on. I think it would be very helpful if the Minister gave us some information as to what actually is being done by the depôt. In regard to the loans for industrial purposes, I am, as I have said, disappointed that they were not loans for the definite work of building up local industries, and were not in the nature of loans to individuals, somewhat similar to the trade facilities loans. While we have to do things by State effort and have to expend State money, there ought to be a definite organisation, for these Gaeltacht areas in particular, by which local people might be got to advance certain sums of money if the State stepped in as a partner along with them to create or develop industries on lines somewhat similar to the Trade Loans Facilities Act. As I say, I am disappointed because I hoped that the £3,000 would be spent on the creation of new industries. It is, however, being spent in the creation of small items so far as I understand.

I have no knowledge of the items of embroidery and poplin, but I have been told that there are two or three industries in Dublin which have a long experience and a fairly good reputation in regard to poplin, and that these industries are finding it very difficult to carry on. If that is so, what is the justification for starting a poplin industry? Is it that the Minister wants definitely to create employment and to set something going in that particular area, that he cannot think of anything else to which he can turn, or is it that the Minister has definite information that there is a future for poplin in a new area where new people will be manufacturing it and where it will be manufactured on a co-operative basis? Does he think definitely that it is likely to be more successful on these lines than it has been in the City of Dublin? Embroidery is a matter that I know still less about, but it seems also that here the Minister is apt to go in, perhaps, too much for creating new industries instead of developing existing ones. If there is a tradition, of course, of embroidery in the area, if it had been manufactured there under the old Congested Districts Board, or even since the Minister took over, well and good, but it seems to me a very specialised kind of work, and it should not be undertaken unless there are very good grounds for doing so. The Minister has not given us any definite commercial reasons at any rate why embroidery and poplin have been taken up.

With regard to the kelp-makers and the Association, the Minister has stressed that, and I take it there are some difficulties in Donegal and other areas. That is a position that often arises. It is the same as you have in the dairying industry. You have the farmers taking part in what might be called a semi-State industry, and you have a lot of them lamenting the fact that the proprietary concerns have left the country just because they could get a slightly better price for their milk. It is exactly the same only, I suppose, more pronounced in the case of the kelp. These people who have been dealing with individual kelp merchants, and who have found them good business people with whom to deal, are probably anxious to continue the connection. Although I recognise the Minister's difficulties, I would prefer if he could get the co-operation of these local merchants in his scheme rather than their antagonism. If you are going to drive people out of business, and if they feel that they have an established trade in connection with it, I feel that you are going to have an amount of trouble.

I realise that it is very difficult indeed to deal with this matter, and we must enable the Minister to take the necessary safeguards to bind the kelp-makers to his association as far as he can, but it is always a nice question, as Deputy Good knows, as to how far exactly we should go in for State organisation of trade, and how far exactly you should go in driving your rivals out of business. I know that Deputy Good will say that once you admit you are going in for State trading, all the other unfortunate consequences must follow, but I do hope there will not be any disadvantage to the Minister's scheme by reason of the well-established dealers, particularly in Donegal. I would much prefer that there should be some arrangement by which you could get their co-operation and experience for your organisation.

The Minister has referred to housing. Housing is one of the matters which certainly seems to justify us in referring the Estimate back for reconsideration. Undoubtedly the Minister has advanced greatly from the position that was revealed when in answer to a question by Deputy O'Connell some months ago he said that the amount granted then was something in the neighbourhood of a few thousand pounds. As a matter of fact, however, the Minister has not definitely stated, I think, in his opening statement—I trust he will make it clear later—what amount has been actually given out in grants up to the present. He has indicated that a very considerable amount has been ear-marked. What does "ear-marked" mean? It means that you have a certain number of applications and you have run over them to see whether they are genuine or not. Your officer has called on the people concerned and has said that these people seem to require houses, seem to require a grant or loan for building or improvements, but after that your housing inspector has to come along and make all the arrangements. The Minister seems to insinuate that all the blame in this matter cannot be saddled on his Department. He said that, after all, skilled labour is a very important matter, and that all the skilled labour that is available will be used up in a few months' time and will be definitely absorbed on the grants he has already given. I do not agree with him that twelve or eighteen months are necessary for the building of houses in the Gaeltacht or that the question of skilled labour should be such a problem.

It was mentioned to me by a native of the district that in Connemara, for example, if there is a terrible lack of skilled labour, you can get contractors always, and it will be the duty of the contractors to put up houses. I think in most areas where the assistance of the people themselves will be given, the question of skilled labour would not be an insuperable obstacle. I think in fact that the question of skilled labour can be easily settled, and that the Minister really cannot put that up as a serious justification for not advancing more rapidly. He has simply told us that the whole of the quarter million will have been ear-marked in six months' time. Whether it is ear-marked or not does not matter. What the House is interested in is the promise of the Minister that the quarter of a million will be definitely expended and will definitely represent an asset to the nation in the form of new houses for the people of the Gaeltacht within three years and that the money will be expended within that time. What the House wants is to see that promise fulfilled and they do not want to see the Minister putting up the excuse that he has ear-marked a certain amount. The point is that the money is not definitely circulating in the areas where it should circulate. The fact is that the Minister lost altogether too much time in the beginning. Five or six valuable months were lost. I do not know why. I am sure the Minister will say that it was due to the language difficulty but in spite of that fact I feel that the experience of the Land Commission is such on housing generally that far more progress should have been accomplished.

With regard to teachers' residences, this is a great advantage which teachers are to get. It is an extraordinary thing that the Minister can tell the House that teachers have been slower than other sections of the community in availing themselves of the housing grants of the Local Government Department. I always understood in my native County of Mayo, at any rate, that the teachers were possibly the best class of the community for building houses and that was one of the reasons why Mayo was in advance of other counties. The Minister has mentioned that smaller houses will be provided for unmarried lady teachers, but in view of the interest of some of the sister services in the unmarried lady teachers and their success in that direction, perhaps the Minister would not insist on giving them smaller residences. We are undoubtedly making a big sacrifice, as the Minister for Education explained on his Vote, when in addition to the very good salaries that we are paying the teachers already we are giving them extra increments as well because they choose to remain in the Gaeltacht.

That seems to me to raise a point of policy. Is it the Government's view that the teachers or any other class of official will not remain in the Gaeltacht? Can an official take up the attitude that he will not remain in the Gaeltacht when the Government decides that because he is an Irish speaker he is a suitable official for that place, and that it is part of our national policy that he should remain there? We know that there are disadvantages in living in the Gaeltacht. We know that all the officials, and possibly all the teachers, who live there would prefer to live in Dublin, but surely they ought to have some interest in the language and in the country generally. I think if the Minister makes an appeal, not alone to the good teachers who are threatening to leave the Gaeltacht, but to the officials generally who speak Irish, and who are such a valuable asset there—because nothing counts more in the Gaeltacht than that the officials should speak Irish—that appeal would be responded to. Nothing, as I have said, counts more in the Gaeltacht than that officials who deal with old age pensions, housing inspectors and other officials who speak Irish to the people, should be stationed there.

What is ruining Irish is that at present it is not spoken in the homes. It may be spoken in the schools, but the pupils are not getting any incentive to speak it in the homes, as their parents are not as interested as they should be. The Government can play an important part, and I think it should adopt a very strong attitude in this matter of getting Irish-speaking officials to remain in the Gaeltacht.

However, if there is a necessity for teachers' residences we are prepared to grant the extra facilities. We are also granting the facilities of increases in their incomes. The question is whether it will be necessary to grant further facilities to those State officials in order to get them to remain in the Gaeltacht? It seems to me that it speaks very badly indeed for the future of the Irish language if we cannot get the people who speak it to make sacrifices of their own volition, and if we cannot get people to do the right thing where it is absolutely necessary. Perhaps we in this House are not as good as we should be in the matter. So much has been made of what the teachers have done, and the wonderful work they have achieved for the Irish language, that I would be greatly surprised indeed if a body of devoted Irish teachers will not always be found to remain in the Gaeltacht and work there. I am sure you will always get a large body of the teachers to do that. I hope that as far as the Gaeltacht is concerned it will get the very best teachers, because if the language is not kept alive there it is the opinion of a great many people that it would be very hard to recover it, in spite of the great advances made outside the Gaeltacht.

There is one other matter to which I want to call attention and that is the question of the inland fisheries. I notice that there is a falling off, not a great falling off, but a falling off nevertheless, in the export of salmon. The figure has gone well below the £200,000 mark and there is also a falling off in the export value of shellfish. The Minister told us last year that the conservators are doing their work well. The income of the conservators, owing to the changes in the rates that have been made, has been considerably increased. Nevertheless, the Minister is giving grants to those conservators. Would the Minister not think that the time has come when the conservators should be able to administer their fisheries without State assistance and with the finances that are made available to them through the rates? I think not alone should they be able to administer them but to develop them as well. These conservators are experienced business men. They have a financial interest in the business, I think, and surely it is up to them to do their share in improving the industry. The Minister told us last year that they have got a greatly increased income and for that reason I felt that there was not so strong a case for giving them a grant. At the same time in the matter of hatcheries we are keenly anxious that these should be developed, and so long as the grant is for the general development of the industry we do not object.

The Minister promised to introduce a Bill to deal with the vexed question of illegal elections or alleged illegalities in the election of conservators. This is a matter, as the Minister knows, that has created a great amount of trouble in certain parts of the country. Certainly I think it is a matter that should be dealt with. I feel that on account of the Minister's negligence that it is one of the matters on which we can ask the House to refer this Vote back.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

It is regrettable that the introduction of this Vote comes at a time when, in constituencies like my own, there are very general complaints about the failure of the industry, and that very many of the matters that are called attention to annually here still remains unattended to. We have the very old complaint now of the invasion of our fishing grounds by foreign boats without any effective check. In mentioning that matter I make a complaint that is general with regard to the industry.

I am glad to see that there are features about this Vote this year that give hope for very much more encouragement than was noticeable in regard to the Vote generally in past years. For instance, I notice with considerable pleasure the fact that where foreign offenders have been detected in the act of poaching fish from our fishing grounds there is a right and proper tendency to impose much stiffer penalties. We should go somewhat further in that direction, and I am rather glad that in some instances along the Southern coast, recently, not alone were stiff fines imposed, but the whole fishing gear of the offenders was confiscated. That is the most effective check that could be imposed for offences of that kind, and it has long been advocated.

It is regrettable that no reasonable measures have yet been taken for adequate protection. I was interested in the reference the Minister made to that aspect of the question to-day, and I regret he decided to put off the responsibility of facing this question definitely to the extent that he did put it off. It ought to be faced very quickly, and if confidence is to be restored that is the most effective way the Minister could adopt to assure the country that there is a great future for the industry. I am glad that the Minister has such hopes of the development of the industry, now that a good deal of responsibility has been passed on to the Sea Fisheries Association. I think there is some ground for optimism in that direction, and I sincerely hope that the Minister's expectations will be fulfilled.

The Minister indicated that a Bill for the revision of loans and the revaluation of boats would be introduced before the end of this session, and, possibly, a Second Reading obtained. I hope that will be so, because our experience in the matter of promised legislation, not in regard to the Minister alone but in regard to Ministers generally, has been very disappointing. Very important measures have been promised time and again. There is entirely too much delay in regard to the introduction of Bills necessary and urgent. Clearly, this is a particularly urgent measure. If the Minister hopes to get the best out of the Sea Fisheries Association, and if he hopes to restore, in the country and in the House, the feeling that something practical will be done for the industry this measure should not be delayed.

Accompanying this measure we ought to have a Bill to settle the question of territorial waters. The efforts of the Minister should be directed towards assuring people interested in the country that a completely fresh start is going to be made in the fishing industry and that an attempt, of which there is reasonable hope of success, is now being made to stem the rot that has set in in regard to fishing. That rot has existed in the fishing industry ever since the change of Government in the country.

With reference to the administration of the Gaeltacht (Housing) Act, while I would like to see much more rapid progress, I was agreeably surprised by the methods employed by the officials of the Department who went to investigate the conditions and give effect to the provisions of the Act. What struck me most was that the officials concerned with the administration of the Act took an entirely new road in the way in which they carried out their work. They cut themselves absolutely adrift from the old, irritating routine, with which we are all familiar, adopted by the Departmental inspectors in regard to other work. I think there was a very earnest desire shown to give effect to the provisions of the Act as speedily as possible. My regret is that the Minister has not secured the appointment of additional temporary inspectors in order to expedite the work of examining applications. We are all familiar with the queries from patient constituents who are hoping to have their cases examined in the near future. Those of us who know the limitations of the staff appointed for that purpose appreciate that there must be some delay. I want to pay the Minister and the Department an unreserved tribute for the manner in which the applications under the Gaeltacht (Housing) Act were and are being examined, and the generous way in which the administration of the Act has been carried out, so far as my experience of it goes.

From what I know about the development that has taken place locally in regard to kelp and carrigeen moss, I am glad to see that the promises made for the substantial development of these industries are being fulfilled and there is every prospect of hopes being realised. I am sure we are all anxious that the Minister will achieve the success he hopes for in that direction.

More in sorrow than in anger, I return to a matter I raised with the Minister on many occasions. Some three or four years ago I referred to the necessity for providing lights in the harbour at Castletownbere. That necessity is now all the greater because certain marks that were available for the guidance of traffic in the harbour were removed some years ago. The Minister at one time almost committed himself to a favourable consideration of this matter. I am sorry he wandered away from his promise Some time afterwards. I have never been able to get him to look at the matter in anything like the same favourable light since. If he examines the matter he will find that a very good case can be made for the provision of lights. Local people will be able to satisfy him that lights would not be merely ornamental; on the contrary, they would be decidedly useful. I will make a special appeal to the Minister now to do what is necessary there.

I am not quite so enthusiastic about, or enamoured with, the policy of the Minister in other directions. In regard to the provision of small works that would be valuable in different areas, the Minister's Department has been too niggardly and miserable. I think, now that a fresh start is being made in regard to the fishing industry, the Minister could review the stingy policy of the Department in regard to the provision of small works. Time and again propositions have been put forward here only to be turned down. The result is that many of us are pessimistic of our chances of being able to convince the Minister that any scheme is suitable or useful.

I feel the Minister has justified this Vote this year more than it has been justified hitherto. While I had certain criticisms to offer, and possibly have other criticisms that I could offer, if I wished to delay the House, I feel that the Minister has done better on this occasion. There is greater hope of success in regard to the fishing industry, now that it is being managed on fresh lines. I hope when this Vote comes forward for consideration again that many of the anticipations we have heard uttered to-night will be fully realised.

Mr. J.T. Wolfe

This subject must necessarily be a difficult one. It is always difficult to discuss an important industry which has been brought almost to the verge of extinction. It is a painful subject, but I am glad to detect, if I rightly followed the Minister, rather an optimistic note and I do hope and trust that we may have reached the darkest hour, the hour before the dawn. I honestly agree with what Deputy Murphy has said, that we have to admit that the Minister has been doing his very best during the last year to bring about that. One of the worst causes in bringing the fishery industry to the state in which it is in to-day, and there is no use in disguising the fact, is the existing irrecoverable loans. They have done more to get the fishing industry in the condition of chaos it is to-day than anything else.

These loans were granted at a time before this Government came into power, and this Government is in no way responsible for them. They were granted when the fishing industry was at high-water mark. To-day, when the fishing industry is at low-watermark, payment is being pressed for. The existence of these loans, and the bringing of legal proceedings have prevented more fishermen from going to sea than anything else. The result is that all along the coast in my constituency you will find fishing boats rotting on the beach, and in the houses fishing gear going past its usefulness. I ask the Minister to-day to take his courage in his hands and make a clean cut of these loans. You may have all the associations in the world, but as long as the irrecoverable loans are there and the fear and the dread of the bailiff and sheriff are in the minds of our people, no useful purpose will be gained by the State, and the fishing industry cannot and will not profit.

I make an appeal I made four years ago to the Minister to try and deal with the question of the territorial limit. The Minister will not take us into a State secret. We can well imagine the Minister for Industry and Commerce mentioning the matter in his recent visit to Paris. He could not be more usefully engaged, and if the matter is pursued there will be no difficulty. We cannot pass an Act in the Dáil giving us a larger territorial limit than the three-mile limit as against the foreigner. We can do it as against our own, and I think we have as much right to do it against our neighbours on the other side of the pond as they have against us. There would be no trouble in getting the necessary consent of other countries engaged in the fishing industry. They are engaged in increasing the territorial limit, and for the protection of our fishing industry we must follow in the way these countries have led. We cannot do with a three-mile limit. We want a five or a six-mile limit, and in connection with that five or six-mile limit we want it as well against Frenchmen as against Irishmen.

With regard to the collecting of these fines, it is to be regretted that in many cases fines are irrecoverable. I agree with the point made by my colleague, Deputy Murphy, as to increasing these fines. A limit of £100 was put on at a time when the value of money was nothing like what it is to-day. I know from personal experience of these prosecutions that during the good times of the fishermen the fines were found to be inadequate. It is right and fair to say that the then Justices for the last two years of their existence, when they were allowed, put on the maximum penalty.

I know of bad cases where a boat came in followed by the Muirchu, or the Helga, as it was known at that time. It was fined but would trawl Bantry Bay on its way out, and get enough fish to pay the fine. It was getting absurd. The fines were then collected. I know of a bench of magistrates who took their courage in their right hand and fined Welshmen £100 and £120 costs. I may tell you it was collected. I took good care of that. The money was collected. We should give our Justices iarger powers than they have. £100 is an inadequate fine for the offence. The fine must be at least doubled, and if it is doubled it must be enforced in a sufficiently competent manner.

I do not say it is the Minister's job. It is not. It belongs to a different Department, but whatever department it belongs to, if the work is carried out properly the penalty can be recovered against Welshmen or Englishmen. If the prosecution is properly conducted the fine can be collected, and will be collected.

With regard to the housing grant, I would only like to say this: I wish I could see some of the houses being built. It may be that the inspectors are so busy in Kerry that they have not time to give sufficient attention to West Cork. I know I need only mention that matter to the Minister to find that it will be rectified, and that we will have a host of inspectors down. As Deputy Murphy remarked to-day, we will not be getting these batches of complaints asking when will the inspectors be coming. We are into the summer—we have already had a fine day—and building must be commenced. If it is not commenced in the next three months it must be kept over till the next year. Some people are waiting patiently. I would prefer to see improvements get preference, because they cost less, and the quicker they go through the better. People are suffering great inconvenience, waiting day after day to put a roof over their heads that will not be a disgrace to civilisation.

On the whole, I say again that matters might be worse, and I am glad to see the Minister optimistic. I hope his optimism will be proved to be well founded, that we have reached the darkest hour before the dawn, that the dawn, when it does come, will be a bright one, and that we will be able to pay a tribute to the Minister in the same enthusiastic manner as we have denounced him from time to time.

Seán O Guilidhe

Tá áthas orm go bhfuilmíd ag dul chun cínn fé dhéire agus go bhfuilmíd ag déanamh iarrachta chun na hiascaireachta do chur chun cinn. Tá súil agam feabhas éicint d'fheiscint sar i bhfaid. Go dti seo ní raibh puinn dul ar aghaidh againn acht tá súil agam go mbeidh feabhas ar an sceal as so amach.

As I said, I am glad to say we are going ahead at last. We are making an effort to put the fisheries on some sort of basis from which we can look forward to some progress. Up to this we have not had very much on which to congratulate ourselves. I think the establishment of the body that we set up last year was a very good idea and apparently is going to bear fruit.

I am glad to see that an effort is to be made to encourage the oyster industry, and the cultivation of that kind of fish generally. Personally I am of opinion that we have not much to hope for from deep sea fishing. Deep sea fishing has become a vast industry in which vast fleets, with enormous financial resources, are catering for the large markets in the world and it is very difficult to see that we have much of a chance of competing with them. So that by fostering our inshore fishing and encouraging an increased consumption of fish in our home market, I think we are proceeding on better lines.

I am not one of those who believe that the Fishery Department can do everything. There is grave danger in this country that we may get into a frame of mind in which we want everything done for us. In some parts of this country that belief I am afraid is getting into the people's minds. It is rather a dangerous thing because it kills initiative and that spirit of individual work which is so essential if we want to get anywhere. In many parts of the country people appear to be watching for the Department to do something; they appear to think that this Department, that Department, the Government or some person can do things for them. All we can expect any Department or any Government to do is to help people to help themselves. In endeavouring to create a market here at home for our inland fisheries an effort should be made, not by the Government or by any Department of the Government, to point out ways in which individuals in the Gaeltacht and in the country generally could work up those markets for themselves.

Reference has been made to the coast patrol. It has been made a complaint for quite a long time past that coast patrol could give us better value. We are spending £8,000 this year on coast patrol. Suggestions have been made here from time to time as to ways in which this money could perhaps be better expended. We have only one patrol vessel, and it is extremely difficult for that vessel to watch every port on the coast. We hear complaints one time from Kinsale, another time from Dunmore, and another from the North, that the patrol boat is not there when she is wanted. With the best will in the world it is not possible for the patrol boat to watch the French off Dunmore and the English trawlers at some place off Donegal. A suggestion was made here last year to establish local patrols. Motor boats could work from the various ports, manned with armed guards. They would do far more efficient work than the one vessel can do. So far apparently the intention is to continue the present coast patrol. I think it would be no harm if some effort were made to assist the patrol as much as possible by establishing local patrols in the various fishing ports.

I know that off the Waterford coast seals have done tremendous damage to salmon this year. The conservators in the greater portion of the country employ marksmen to shoot them down. One marksman off one portion of the coast can do very little work this way. An effort should be made to assist the conservators. If necessary, we could have a corps of rifle-men concentrated on one particular portion of the coast that would be for the moment infested with seals.

On one portion of the Waterford coast a pier was constructed some years ago for the convenience of the fishermen. Complaints have been made to me lately that this pier has been usurped by merchants for the storage of coal and other merchandise, with the result that the fishermen have been edged out. They now find themselves in the position of interlopers, and when they endeavoured to restore their position I believe it was found that the merchants had a legal right to the pier, and the men for whom it was originally constructed now find themselves practically ousted. To put it mildly, it is not fair if we build piers for the convenience, safety and wellbeing of fishermen to allow any person or persons to oust them.

As regards the question of inland fisheries, I think I drew attention here before to the destruction of spawning fish on the Blackwater. The conservators have been pretty active for the past couple of years. They kept a fairly good number of bailiffs but they appear to be more anxious to prevent poaching in the fishing season than in the close season. A poacher in the fishing season could do a certain amount of damage. He might kill twenty or thirty or even a thousand fish, but the killing of half a dozen spawning fish does far more damage. It would be far more important that the efforts of the bailiffs should be concentrated on poaching during the close season than at any other time. The man who kills a few fish in the fishing season does nothing at all compared to the damage that poaching in the off season does. I am afraid that the destruction of spawning fish in the upper reaches of the spawning rivers still goes on. Of course every effort is made to cope with it, but it is extremely difficult to keep a proper watch. It is almost impossible to watch these rivers sufficiently.

I see no Estimate here for hatcheries. I believe the Lismore hatchery was not worked during the past year. It was one of the largest hatcheries in the country and it certainly did very good work. It is a pity that the Department cannot see its way to keep it going. I understand that the hatchery was run in collaboration with the Duke of Devonshire. I do not know whose fault it was that it was put out of commission. I think it is certainly a pity. Millions of salmon fry were reared there and let loose in the Blackwater and other rivers. It certainly did a lot to restore the salmon to the rivers.

I am glad to see that the Department is taking up the question of establishing trout hatcheries. Trout fishing has always been a little industry in the country and one of the greatest sources of enjoyment we have, especially to the poorer men who cannot afford the more expensive form of fishing, and every effort should be made to encourage the preservation of trout. After all salmon fishing is more or less a luxury and is confined to those who can well afford to pay for it, with the result that the local fishermen are practically closed out.

The only thing left to them is trout fishing. The position of farmers along some of our salmon rivers is one causing anxiety. In view of the near approach of the vesting of land, many of these people do not know where they stand. They are anxious that some effort should be made to establish their rights, if they have rights, to the fishing on their land. They hold that along these rivers, where many of them suffered seriously from flood and damage, they are entitled to some compensation, and the form of compensation they look for is the vesting of the fishing rights in them at a fair price, or else a certain amount of compensation if the fishing rights are to be taken from them. Personally, I have an open mind on the matter. I know that these fishing rights are very valuable, and that if an effort is not made to conserve them and to have the stretches of the river properly watched and taken care of serious damage may be caused to inland fisheries. But if these men are not fairly dealt with, if the fishing rights along their particular lands are taken from them, it will make them rather envious, and it will not give them any incentive to preserve-the fish along their own particular stretch of river. So that I think every effort should be made to keep these men friendly and to meet them in some way in the demands they put forward for fair treatment.

The belief is prevalent in some places that the conservators are acting more or less in favour of the rod fishing men. It is claimed that the conservators are discriminating rather unfairly against the others, that they are very anxious to preserve the salmon for the men who fish in the upper reaches of the river rather than the men who make a living by netting in the tidal portions of the river. I am speaking now of the Blackwater. Men who are professional fishermen, and who in the season make a living out of it, and in the off-season practically have nothing to do, are entitled to more consideration than the men with whom fishing is just a pastime. They tell me that lately they have been unduly harassed by the bailiffs not only of the conservators, but by the private bailiffs of the Duke of Devonshire, and they claim that they are not getting a fair show.

With regard to the Gaeltacht housing scheme, I am afraid that I cannot congratulate the Department on its progress, so far as my part of the country is concerned. Outside the immediate neighbourhood of Colaiste na Rinne nothing is being done in the county. Men who, on the passing of the Act, applied for a loan have simply got the usual official reply, and so far have heard nothing further. I think it is a mistake to introduce too much red tape in connection with this scheme. Many of these men are capable of building their own houses. They do not want elaborate structures, but if they get a loan they are willing to put up a fairly decent house for themselves and I think the Department should stretch a point in their favour. There is no necessity to send down an engineer and to insist upon a particular kind of house being built. They know the class of house that would suit them best and if they got a loan and were allowed to build a house themselves it would be far more effective. They understand that the delay is due to the difficulty of procuring Irish-speaking engineers. A man need not be a very expert engineer to supervise the house that these men would build. I am not pleading for the building of the old-fashioned type of house that was insanitary and so on, but a perfectly good sound type of house could be built by these men without any elaborate preparations. They have the stone and the gravel on the ground and it is simply a case of procuring the cement and timber and they can put up a fairly decent house. It is unfair to many who are living in very insanitary houses and who urgently need proper housing accommodation that red tape should tie them up.

Mr. Law

I have sometimes in the past been rather severe on the Minister and his Department—I hope not unfairly. I am, therefore, all the more glad to be able to say now that, as far as my experience goes, we have very little to complain of in connection with the work of the Department in the course of the last couple of years. I think the Minister has every reason to be proud of the success which has already attended the kelp project. It was a long time getting under way. I know myself that the matter was under consideration in one way or another for at least two years before anything was done, but, now that it has been launched, so far as my information goes the results have proved exceedingly good and there has been a very real gain to the people for whom this scheme was primarily intended. I have very often said before that in the Gaeltacht we must never despise small things and that very little counts in the economy of that part of the world.

The same thing applies to the Gaeltacht housing scheme. I was myself thoroughly dissatisfied with what seemed to be the extremely slow progress which the scheme made during the first six or eight months, but I must say that of late things do seem to have been very greatly speeded up. I cannot honestly say that I have myself found any great amount of red tape in that particular Department. On the contrary, I think that since the institution of the Gaeltacht section a great deal of common-sense and a real disposition to study the actual conditions of the people and to meet the necessities of their lives has been shown by the Minister and his officials. It is only right and honest that I should say that, because I have on previous occasions had to complain.

I am a little bit alarmed—I hope the Minister will forgive me—by the announcement he made that it is hoped before long to conduct the whole of the business of that particular section in Irish. I do not make any particular plea for myself. I daresay they will always, if I have occasion to consult them, condescend to my weakness and converse with me in English, but I think there is a more important matter, and a more serious matter, and that is that the people themselves in the Gaeltacht are not always perhaps as perfectly familiar with official Irish as is sometimes assumed. I have a distinct recollection, in relation to the Gaeltacht Housing Act itself, of having heard a great many people, who were undoubtedly Irish speakers, say that they had some difficulty in entirely comprehending the forms which were sent to them. It had been necessary, in some instances at any rate, to consult the Catholic curate or the schoolmaster, who, I have no doubt, were better acquainted with the particular idiom used in official matters. I doubt very much whether the use of Irish in the correspondence of the Department will be regarded as a great boon or favour by the people in the Gaeltacht.

As to the sea fisheries, I think the success that attended all other efforts of the Department gives good promise of a successful outcome there. I shall not say anything about it, because it is a highly technical matter, and the marketing of fish is one of those technical matters of which I have no possible knowledge. We have some reason to believe that it is now in very capable hands, and I shall not attempt, and it would be very foolish for any of us to attempt to express an opinion about its probable success. What I would like to ask the Minister is this: He did in one part of his speech deal with the position and the future of the Association, but he did not develop that very far. Perhaps when he replies he might be able to give us some more information, which I think would be welcome, as to the actual terms upon which the fishermen are themselves to be employed when they become members. I know the rules of the Association have been published, but perhaps you could tell us, in simple language to suit our comprehension, what exactly are the terms on which the Association proposes to employ or to promote the employment of the actual fishermen, and particularly the inshore fishermen. It has been suggested to me—I do not know whether it is sound or not—that some of those conditions of employment, and particularly the employment, of the skippers, were not such as were likely to be very successful or to cause many applications to be made for employment. I do not know whether that is so. I only mention it as a point for consideration.

With regard to the patrol boat and the three-mile limit, we can there again only have hope. Certainly there is no cause here to complain of excessive haste. I have before now reminded the Dáil that one of my first speeches in the House of Commons, in the year 1902, was devoted to an exposition of the situation as it then existed, and the necessity, at that time, of supplementing the efforts of the "Helga," if possible, by another patrol boat. I pointed out to the Dáil three years ago that the situation in the interval had not changed, except that the "Helga" got a new name and was thirty years older. Next year I hope we shall hear that she has at last got a companion vessel before being forced into honourable retirement.

I agree entirely with the last speaker about the desirability of encouragement and improving our trout fishery. I have done a little hatching of trout on a small scale myself. I know that one can make quite hitherto barren water yield good stocks and give good sport, and become quite a definite asset to a district by the judicious breeding of trout. Though of course trout fishing can never rival salmon fishing in importance, still it can be a source of very great pleasure to large numbers of people who cannot for financial and other reasons expect to enjoy any other form of sport. It can not only be a very great pleasure to individuals but a source of very considerable profit in the aggregate to the country. If the Minister can give us some further particulars when he replies in regard to his project for trout hatcheries, I shall be glad.

The last speaker again referred to some dispute between those interested in the upper waters and the tidal waters of a certain river. I shall not attempt to express any opinion upon the merits of that particular controversy since obviously it is not my business, and I am not acquainted with the matter. But may I put this general consideration to him? It is foolish, I think, to speak of favouring the one against the other and it would be very foolish to favour one party to such a controversy, at the expense of the other. The real truth, of course, is that for those interested in salmon fishing, if you examine the thing properly there is no clash of interest between those fishing in the tidal estuary and those fishing in the upper waters. It is to the interest of both that a proper stock of fish should be preserved. If the fish are not allowed to spawn in the upper waters there will not be any in the lower waters; if the people in the upper waters do not do their duty in protecting the fish in the spawning season there will be no fish for the men below. It is really the interest of both parties that proper protection should be given to the fish, and there ought to be no question of favouring one at the expense of the other.

Mr. Anthony

In common with other Deputies who have spoken I have, since my entrance into this House, taken a very deep interest in this Vote. The Minister for Fisheries is most helpful and sympathetic in proposals put before him from time to time, to improve the fishing of this country, whether relating to sea fishing or inland fishing. Deputy Law anticipated some of the things I intended to say. I thoroughly endorse everything he said with regard to the non-conflict of interest between the inland fishermen and the sea fishermen. There is something possibly that has been left unsaid and it is this: that in order to get rid of that conflict that is present—I think the Minister should take particular notice of this— we should arouse the public conscience in this particular respect, that if we are to have the upper reaches of our waters teeming with fish, more preservation will have to be insisted upon in the lower reaches and the tidal waters. There should be at least common interest between the fisherman who casts his net in the tidal waters and the rod fisherman on the upper reaches.

As one who has fished for both salmon and trout I must pay this tribute to the Minister for Fisheries that any time a demand, or request, is sent to him for the development of the inland fisheries he has very readily responded. He has, through his Department, to my knowledge, supplied trout, and I feel that if he was called upon to-morrow to do something in the direction of increasing the number of hatcheries in the country that, if his finances would permit, he would do so readily. Certain moneys are set apart under this Vote for grants to boards of conservators and local fishery associations. They amount to £1,240. I feel that sum is not sufficient. If we are ever to develop our inland fisheries we must have more hatcheries established. I have had experience of hatcheries in the south of Ireland, and I agree with Deputy Law that they have proved exceedingly useful. I can point to two or three rivers in West Cork, notably on the Bandon river and on the Island where hatcheries were established. Without them there would be no trout or salmon in those rivers to-day, notwithstanding the fact that at that particular period poaching was one of our national pastimes. I think Deputy Jasper Wolfe will agree with me on that. If our people had the common sense to do all in their power to prevent poaching there would be an abundance of fish in the rivers. There would be plenty of sport for everyone. It is unfortunate that the civic conscience has not been aroused in that respect.

The Department has done a good deal in the way of making provision for boards of conservators and fishery associations, but I would like to point out to the Minister that one little launch on the River Lee is not enough to do efficiently the patrol work required over a large expanse of water. The result is that an amount of poaching takes place in the lower harbour, and fish cannot pass up into the upper regions. There is a consequent dearth of fish, and the natural corollary to that is that the fisheries cannot be let. I readily concede that for a number of years great assistance has been given to conservators and to sportsmen. When I speak of sportsmen I do not mean the type that is prepared to buy a whole stretch of fishing along a river and pay a huge sum of money for it. I refer rather to the thousands and thousands of anglers who, Sunday after Sunday, go out from our cities and towns and fish for trout.

I should like to say also that very effective work is being done by the Civic Guards. Miles of the river are patrolled by them, with the result that there is no poaching and no illegal fishing because of the good work they are doing. The Guards do that work not in the spirit of trying to catch poachers but rather to prevent poaching. I know that they frequently lecture those who for the first time have been caught indulging in poaching, and their efforts in that direction are most praiseworthy. I think that something should be done for the huge army of trout anglers who go out fishing week after week and who, because of some accident may, instead of hooking a brown trout, hook what is known as a salmon trout and thereby render themselves liable to a fine. Something should be done to render them immune from the penalties they are liable to when an accident of that kind occurs. It has been my luck on occasions to hook a white trout, or indeed salmon for that matter, when I was only fishing for ordinary trout on a Peel rod. I think some arrangements should be made so that where bona fide anglers are fishing for brown trout they should not be mulcted in a few pounds because a white trout was foolish enough to rise to the bait. I think the Minister, at least, should negotiate with the Departments concerned, so that where a man hooks a white trout, who is not a poacher, mark you, but who is legitimately fishing for brown trout, and by mere accident hooks a white trout he should not be mulcted and treated as a poacher or as one who wanted to break the law. I know many of that class to be the best sportsmen in the country.

To return to the question of hatcheries, I feel that the Minister has not done sufficient in that direction. There are many parts of the rivers Lee, Bandon, the Island and other rivers which are eminently suitable for the establishment of hatcheries. I have no doubt that even if the Minister were to institute some system of licensing through conservators it would be the means of bringing revenue to his Department. In saying that I want to suggest that instead of the ordinary £2 licence for salmon, if there were an arrangement with the Department of Finance to establish licences say for 5/- or 10/-, it would be a gesture to bona fide anglers, who might possibly get themselves into trouble by hooking a white trout.

I want to say that any comments I have to make are not in any way directed against the Minister. I feel that he has fulfilled the duties of his position very creditably and very well, and I know that he is always sympathetic to persons who have gone to his Department in the direction I have indicated. I want to pay him that little tribute because I think he deserves it. No matter what strictures have been passed on his Department those who have made these strictures admit that the Minister himself means well, and for that reason I do not propose to vote against this Estimate.

Mr. T. Sheehy (West Cork):

As one associated with deep sea fishing for half a century, I hail with the greatest pleasure the atmosphere in which this debate has been conducted. I noticed that from the speech of Deputy Derrig who, I am sure, will not persevere in his proposal to refer back the Estimate, up to the present everyone had a good word for the Minister, and for the work which we all sincerely hope will bring back an era of prosperity to our deep sea fishing and to our inland fishing. I must say that the fisheries were up against a century of neglect. When we were robbed of our own Parliament a century ago our fisheries were a success, and so were our linen and other industries. They all fell away and gradually decayed. There was a revival when the mackerel fishing started fifty years ago and it gained an amount of prosperity owing to the ability of those who were running it. They threw their heart and soul into the matter and built up the fishing industry. It commenced to decay at the time of the great war owing to the collapse that occurred in prices. Now there is a gleam of sunshine on the horizon. The Minister after four years of criticism—of undeserved criticism in the House—because he was doing his level best under great difficulties, has proved himself sincere in his efforts to revive our fisheries. He has gained the goodwill of fishermen along our seaboard, and the support of the Irish people in every corner of the Saorstát.

We believe that the era of prosperity will return. A Deputy on the opposite benches has called attention to the fact that nearly £400,000 leaves this country for fish. All of that money could be kept at home if we could supply our own needs. Our deep sea fishing was killed after the great war because the fishery boards in England and Scotland provided deep sea fishing boats for their people to plough the western main. These boats destroyed our spawning beds for one hundred miles west of the Fastnet, with the result that the efforts of our fishermen were paralysed and the boats they had were not suitable to cope with their competitors. I have great hopes that the Fisheries Association will deal with that side of the question. The fishermen believe that the Association will stand for the revival of Irish fisheries. They believe that behind its efforts is the honesty of the Government which has proved once more that it has the interests of the fishermen at heart, and that it will not hesitate to support them financially.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

Proinnsias O Fathaigh

Dubhairt an Teachta tá d'éis labhartha go samhluightar dó go bhfuil Aire an Iascaigh i ndáriribh i ndeire thiar thall. Tá súil againn go bhfuil bunadhas leis an dóchas sin. Tuigtar an galar nó na galair atá ag goilleamhaint ar an iascaireacht. Beifar ag súil leis an leigheas anois. Is ionmholta an obair atá ghá dhéanadh, in aisce, ag Coiste an Chumainn nua agus b'fhéidir go bhfaighidh siad san an leigheas.

Bhí áthas orm a chloisteáil go bhfuil teagase dá thabhairt do scata figheadóirí sa Cheathramhain Rua agus tá dóchas agam go ndéanfar obair a sholáthair dóibh i gConamara as so amach. Dar ndóigh, tá gábhadh mór le deuntúsaí sa límistéir sin, óir dá fheabhas é an obair atá le fághail ag cuid de mhuinntir na Gaillimhe ag bailiú na carraighíne agus na ceilpe, ní bhíonn acht an chaolchuid ag gabháilt den obair sin. Maidir leis an gcarraigín, dubhairt an t-Aire linn roinnt mhí ó shoin go rabhthas ag iarraidh a dheunamh amach cé an sórt puill nó umair ab'-fhearr leis an gceilp a chur i dtaisge. Níl fhios agam an bhfuil an t-Aire sásta leis an bplean atá beartuithe acu. Deirtear liomsa go bhfuil cuid mhaith de'n cheilp cheudna go bréan lobhtha ins na pollaibh sin san Iarthar.

Rinne an t-Aire tagairt don deontas airgid nó don iasacht airgid atá ar fághail le trucail capaill nó trucaill asail do cheannach ag lucht bailithe na ceilpe. Tá sin go maith. Acht ba chóir iasacht airgid a thabhairt amach le báid bheaga a cheannach. Tá oiread gábhadh leo sin agus atá le trucaill, mar, cheal na mbád sin, is mimc fluich nó leath-bháidhte na daoine agus iad ag siubhal amach sa tsáile ag bailiú na ceilpe.

Do labhair an Teachta Hugh Law ar sceul na n-iascairi a chosaint ar na tralaéirí allmhuracha. Is léir nach mór gleus cosanta níos éifeactla d'fhághail. Sa bhfreagra a tugadh le goirid do Mhíchéal O Cléirigh, Teachta, d'admhuigh Aire an Iascaigh nach bhfuarathas greim acht ar aon trálaer amháin acu sin as naoi gcinn deug a bhí, go bhfios do'n Rialtas, ag marbhú éisc dtaobh istigh de line na dtrí míle slí. Is bocht an sceul é sin. Cé méid eile bhí ann i ngan fios don Rialtas? Mholas do'n Aire bliain o shoin sa Dáil seo gan dearmad a dhéanamh ar na hoisreacha ná ar na gliomaigh. Is maith liom go bhfuiltar ag feuchaint chun an scéil sin anois, mar go gceaptar cois fhairrge go dtiocfaidh tairbhe as na rudaí sin.

I dtaoibh tithe na Gaeltachta, iarraim ar an Aire feuchaint chuige go dtabharfar na deontaisí amach do na hiarrathóirí go luath agus go tapaidh. Deirtear go bhfuiltear ag caitheamh bliain go leith ar thigh do thógáil fá láthair. Iarfainn ar an Aire na daoine atá ag obair ar na tithe do bnrostú i dtreo go dtógfar an oiread tithe agus is feidir sara dtiocfaidh an geimhreadh orainn arís.

Dr. White

I am afraid that someone has been reading my speeches, and that perhaps some people think I am a greater orator than I really am, or that I possess more knowledge of fishing than I think I do myself.

Mr. Fahy

They must not have read the Deputy's speeches.

Dr. White

I had a rather unique experience this evening when I heard from the benches opposite what sounded to me suspiciously like a speech I delivered on this Vote in 1923. To say the least of it, I think that is rather a little bit blasé. I congratulate the Minister. I think I have seldom listened to a more businesslike or practical speech than he made this evening when putting his Estimate before the House. As far as I can see, the Sea Fisheries Association is going to be a success. As the inland and in shore fisheries are developed in course of time I feel the Association will also be able to develop to some extent our deep sea fisheries. I think it is correct to say that I have spoken on this Vote every year since I became a member of the House. I do not want to repeat what I said on previous occasions, but so far as the fisheries are concerned the most important question, in my opinion, that requires to be dealt with is that of protection. I know it is a big and difficult question, but to my mind the whole success of our fisheries scheme hinges on the fact that we must have adequate protection.

We have one patrol boat, and although there is no question as to the anxiety of the captain and crew to do their duty, and do it efficiently, they cannot adequately protect our shores against poachers. I am quite satisfied that the question of the sea fisheries within the three-mile limit will be successfully dealt with, because the Department of Fisheries have in a very wonderful degree also been successful in dealing with the carrigeen moss and kelp industry. Looking at the Estimate, I find that something like £10,000 has been paid to gatherers of carrigeen moss. It is wonderful to see what a Government can achieve. On the last occasion when we were discusssing this Estimate this subject was not treated fairly by the Opposition; in fact they laughed at it, but now, after one year, the Department of Fisheries have put into the pockets of one section of our people a sum of £10,000 for one item alone.

As regards the kelp industry, many things have led up to this great venture, or rather, adventure, because that is what these industries mean. First of all, you have the gathering, picking, grading, and distributing of carrigeen moss and the gathering, drying and burning of kelp in a scientific manner and also exporting it in crude form to other countries. All these things have to be carefully considered, and I think the Department deserve to be congratulated on the fact that after one year's existence we are able to produce iodine from kelp and gather carrigeen moss. I see great possibilities for the iodine industry. I understand that the tendency is for the price to go up. It is a worldwide commodity and its uses are a thousandfold. Every day it is coming more and more into common use, not alone in the medical but in the commercial world, and is probably one of the most wonderful products which we are using to-day.

The Minister, I think, stated that we only use about four pounds of fish per capita each year in this country. If you want to make the Sea Fisheries Association a success you must carefully consider your plans. There is no use growling at the Minister and saying that he should do this, that he should do that, and that there is great waste of time. It should be remembered that we are dealing with one of the most perishable edible commodities there is, and before anything can be done in regard to its development you have to look carefully ahead. I believe that the very people who say that it should be done quickly would be the first to get up, if anything went wrong, and say: "What sort of a Government have we?" I believe that the Sea Fisheries Association is going to be a success, and I realise that in embarking on a venture to organise the sea fisheries of Ireland the Government and the Minister are undertaking a tremendous task. The Minister is going to endeavour to bring about a revolution in the fishing industry. I place the fishing industry as second only to some of the very successful undertakings which the Government have brought into existence. I place it second only to such a successful undertaking as the Shannon Scheme and perhaps, in a way, it is a more complex and difficult undertaking to bring to a successful conclusion. As an old fisherman, I can see many rocks, currents, shoals and reefs ahead of the Minister and his Department but I merely clap them on the back and tell them to go ahead, because I believe that they will make a success of the Sea Fisheries Association.

There is another matter to which I would draw attention. In the year 1922-3 we were very much pestered with seals in Waterford harbour, and I asked the then Minister for Fisheries to send down some armed men to shoot them. He did so with very good results, but at present I understand that seals are again appearing in the harbour; in fact, not only have we seals but we have also shoals of sharks off the Waterford coast. I know that the Minister is very active and efficient, but how he can overcome the presence of seals and sharks in Waterford, I do not know. I would also like to point out that the oyster fisheries in Waterford were once very valuable, and I think that something should be done to revive them. The Passage oyster was once well known in Dublin, and the citizens here held it in very high esteem. Owing to reasons, which I will not go into to-night, the Passage oyster is a thing of the past. There is one feature in connection with this matter to which I should draw attention. Perhaps it is a matter for the port authority, but the Minister might be able to issue instructions in regard to it. I am told that vessels coming in and out of Waterford, instead of waiting until they get to sea, throw overboard their debris, ashes, clinkers and other waste products which land on the oyster beds. That practice could be stopped if instructions were issued by the Minister.

Salmon fishing last year and the year before was in a bad way in the Saorstát, and no one knows the factors that contributed to its failure. The same holds good in regard to other kinds of fish. One Deputy has complained that the value of fish imported here was £356,000 and that the export value was only £400,000. For some reason or another the herring, mackerel and salmon fisheries have not been doing well, but I think that this season, so far as Waterford, at least, is concerned, it is a good season for salmon. It is all very well to talk about catching fish, complaining about the amount of fish being imported, and saying that our exports should be greater—and I would like to see them greater—but if the fish is not there it cannot be exported. That is what has been happening in this country during the last few years. I asked the Minister on a former occasion to do his best to increase the number of salmon hatcheries. In Waterford we have probably the biggest salmon hatchery in the country, but I think we could do with more. If the number of hatcheries were increased it would be a great source of wealth to our people and the country generally.

I am glad to see that the amount of money allocated to the Department of Fisheries is nearly £100,000 greater than last year. That is a very good thing for the fishing industry and the nation generally. On a former occasion I stated that I regarded the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Agriculture as twin Departments, and I said that I saw no reason why a greater amount of money should not be given to the Department of Fisheries. Happily that state of affairs has now been changed, and the Minister for Fisheries has succeeded in getting the Minister for Finance to open wide his purse strings. I believe that we are at the beginning of a new era and that the Minister and his Department realise that a great revolution is about to take place in regard to our fishing industry. I congratulate the Minister. I am pleased to read the Estimate, and it will give me great pleasure to vote for it.

Mr. O'Donovan

I am not going to congratulate the Minister, but I must say that, judging by the speeches made here to-night, there is general agreement that something has been accomplished by the Minister for the fishing industry in general. I desire to re-echo a remark made by my colleague, Deputy Jasper Wolfe, that as far as the fishing industry in my constituency is concerned, its present condition is largely due to the old debts hanging over the heads of the fishermen. If, as Deputy Wolfe suggested, the Minister took his courage in both his hands and wiped off that debt I think it would do more to revive the fishing industry than anything else that could be done. I am afraid that I cannot congratulate the Minister with regard to the homespun industry either, but I am glad that he has realised that in West Cork there is a factory which is producing homespuns. We hear a lot about Donegal and about Connemara, but we have also a factory in West Cork. The Minister has found that out at last, and he has sent down a man to inspect that factory with a view to fostering the industry there. I hope to hear that the products of these woollen mills will be displayed in the hall here by the Minister, as well as the products from Donegal and Connemara.

One matter which I have raised time and again on this Estimate—and I am afraid I cannot congratulate the Minister on the progress he has made here either—is with regard to our inshore fishermen. In my constituency we have quite a number of fishing hamlets which supply us with fresh fish. They supply our local towns. They give us a genuine article of food, but it is only with extreme difficulty that they can land their small catches. I have appealed time and again to the Minister and appeals have been sent to his Department asking for the provision of piers where these fishermen might land their small catches. I hope I can congratulate the Minister, on the occasion of the introduction of his next Estimate, on having built those piers. Again, on the matter of housing in the Gaeltacht, I cannot congratulate the Minister. An inspector was sent down six months ago. In one parish which I know, which is very convenient to me—it is a very congested area and it is practically Irish-speaking—there might be seventy or eighty applications for grants under the Housing Act. Every one is a deserving case, but I do not think anything has been done in any case. I hope that when the Minister next presents his Estimate I can congratulate him on having had these houses built and also on having provided the piers for the fishermen whose cases I have mentioned.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

There are a few points on which I would like to get information. I did not hear all the Minister's statement and I do not know if he stated what was the rate of percentage on the loans given for Gaeltacht housing. Has the rate been decided upon, and is the Minister in a position to say what it is? I mention this matter because if the rumours I have heard are anything like a fact I am afraid the rate is altogether beyond what it should be.

I do not know whether the figure is definitely fixed. Perhaps the Minister is in a position to say. The number of houses towards which grants have been made has increased considerably. I agree with Deputy Fahy that the Minister's estimate of one and a half years for the building of a house is altogether too great. It may be that that period would elapse from the making of the application until the house is built. I complained on a former occasion about the rate at which these houses are being built. I admit considerable progress has been made, but there are areas which have not yet been touched. I understand there is a difficulty about valuation. Even where the valuation is beyond a certain figure I do not know whether that should entirely guide the Minister. Where the necessity is greatest, grants should be given. I know the attention of the Minister has been entirely confined to areas where the valuation is below a certain figure. Outside these areas there are undoubtedly very necessitous cases and before the grant is entirely expended it should be decided whether some of the more necessitous cases, even where the valuation is beyond the usual limit, should not be attended to.

As regards the Gaeltacht Housing Act, provision is made there for a scheme of combined purchasing of materials and supplying them to the builders of houses. What has been done in that direction? With regard to the fishing industry, I believe the Minister has put his finger on the real kernel of the case when he spoke about organising the market for fish. It is many years since that aspect of the case was put before him here by Deputies and when it was submitted that the real solution of the fishing industry lay in the provision of markets at home and abroad and encouraging, by advertisements and otherwise, the use of fish as a food.

With regard to the other activities of the Department that we have heard so much about this evening, I have been wondering why Deputy Good, and even the Minister for Local Government—those champions of individual enterprise and non-interference by the State in industry—were not here to denounce the Minister for his action in regard to kelp and rural industry and other things that all parts of the House have been lauding him about, this evening. We may be told that this is not a case of the State running an industry, but there are more ways of killing a cat than choking it with butter. So far as their activities have developed these industries they have my approval in any case. I believe that by the proper organisation of the kelp industry along the lines which he has suggested a great deal can be done. I am not in a position to speak on the work of the Sea Fisheries Association so far as it has gone. We expect big things from it, but I hope that our hopes will not be dashed as they have been dashed too often before in regard to this particular Department.

Mr. Shaw

I would like just to mention, in connection with the importance of inland fisheries, a few facts. I come from a district where the lakes are probably the most celebrated in Ireland with regard to successful fishing, and I would like to draw attention to the importance of doing elsewhere what has been done there. On a discussion on this Vote in this House on a previous occasion I mentioned that the inland fisheries in Ireland are, in my opinion, a gold mine if they were properly developed. I do not say that their non-development so far is, in any way, the fault of the Minister, quite the contrary. What is required is that there should be organisation in connection with the lakes and inland fisheries such as we have in Westmeath in the case of the Lough Ennell and Lough Owel Preservation Society, which propagates and develops trout each year. In five or six years they have hatched out 300,000 young trout, which they have put into the various lakes and rivers in the county. The result is that the fishing has reached an extraordinarily successful position in the county. I intend here to give the House details of what occurred last week.

It might have been noticed that I was not in the Dáil, because the Mayfly fishing was in full swing. The fishing on Lough Ennell was extraordinarily successful. I will give the House an idea of what I did. The fishermen I was with and I got 42 magnificent trout from 5½ lbs. down to 1 lb. The various other boats on the lake were equally successful. On last Sunday the largest number of fish that has ever been caught, in my opinion, on the lake were taken. In one particular place where the boats land there were 93 trout of different sizes brought in. Each boat had a fair average catch. The Minister has given this Lough Owel and Lough Ennel Society grants for fishery development. Similar grants are required in other parts of the country. Organisation should be established in those places and they should act on lines similar to ours. I believe there are very few doing it. It is difficult for me to illustrate here what an extraordinary amount of money is brought into the country through fishing. Tourists come from all parts. During the past week there have been large numbers of persons from England and other places and they have been absolutely astonished to think that, without any advertisement and without the place being brought under the notice of the public through such organisations as the Irish Tourist Development Association, there could be such remarkably successful fishing. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 5th June.