Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Jul 1931

Vol. 39 No. 14

Fisheries (Revision of Loans) Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

This is a Bill to give me powers to deal with the arrears outstanding on certain fishery loans made by the late Congested Districts Board, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries. These outstanding obligations have long been weighing on the fishing industry and have resulted in a certain amount of despondency where, for the development of the industry, we are all desirous of seeing a revival of enterprise and confidence. It is always a grave matter to propose that debts due to the public should be remitted or substantially reduced. It would be greatly damaging to the credit of the country if a belief should grow in the public mind that obligations due to the State are not as equally binding as obligations between individuals. In regarding this matter we should be guided by similar considerations and standards as if these debts were debts due from one individual to another. I think that in such circumstances the first question which the creditor would ask himself is this: What ought I to do as a pure matter of business? The second question which he would probably ask himself is: Are there any other circumstances which I ought to take into account bearing in mind that I may desire to do business with my debtor again in the future? These are not, perhaps, the highest grounds on which one could examine a question of this sort but they generally lead us to pretty sound conclusions.

There are 449 cases of loans, some for boats, some for engines, and some for nets, which originally stood at a figure of £104,101 9s. 0d., and on which a total sum of £67,850 10s. 5d. remained due and outstanding on 1st June last. In these cases the borrowers are dead, have left the country, or have long since ceased to be fishermen, the boats for which the loans were made no longer exist, the engines also are gone or worn out, and the nets are worn out. The borrowers, where they are still within reach, are not persons against whom one could either with profit or justice take proceedings to recover any part of the sums due. There is no asset which one could recover.

There are, however, the sureties for some of these loans. They entered into bonds under which they could be proceeded against for the sums due. Those bonds are quite good and enforceable. The sureties are not, in the majority of such cases, persons of much substance, but I might succeed in recovering something from them. Would it be a proper course to enforce these bonds to the extent to which they are enforceable? I have come to the conclusion after careful thought that it would not. I do not seek to ignore the liabilities which these sureties undertook. They sponsored the integrity and industry of the borrowers, and they indemnified the State against any failure by the borrowers to meet their obligations. I think, however, that we must look to what happened subsequently. Most of these loans were made between 1917 and 1919 when prices of boats and gear were at their highest point. Their earning power was equally high. Then following 1919, when British trawlers were brought again into commission, the earning power of these boats fell away to comparatively negligible proportions. Later transport in this country was seriously interfered with, and conditions which were already bad were rendered worse. Furthermore, the herring has for some unknown reason forsaken parts of our coast, and both the markets for herring and mackerel have been depressed for reasons beyond our control. These are the causes which most largely contributed to create the position which we are now facing, and the question which I had to ask myself was whether it would be proper to place upon the shoulders of these sureties the burden resulting from these causes. The conclusion I came to was that it would not be just nor in the public interest to do so. I therefore propose to write off the whole of that £67,850 10s. 5d.

There are 23 cases of loans which originally stood at £19,448 19s. 9d., of which £15,799 14s. 8d. was outstanding and due at 1st June last. In these cases there are 21 boats which are either laid up and not in use or which, if put to some use, are not in the hands of men who, in my opinion, are ever likely to make proper use of them. I propose to remit the whole outstanding amounts in these cases on condition that the boats and gear are handed over to me, when I shall transfer them to the Sea Fisheries Association.

When were these loans made?

They are mixed up—from 1914 onward. Some of them come down to 1922 or 1923. All the cases I am dealing with come from even prewar days down to comparatively recent times. The total where the borrowers borrowed from the Department of Fisheries is only £7,846. The other sum is for cases prior to that period.

Is the money which was borrowed from the Fishery Department of this Dáil included in this £19,000?

There will be some. This leaves 280 cases of loans originally standing at £41,033 19s. 8d., on which £29,370 13s. 5d. was due and outstanding on 1st June last. I propose on certain conditions to write down this sum by £17,900 13s. 9d., thus reducing the sum due to £11,469 19s. 8d. These are cases in which the borrowers are still engaged in the industry. The main principle by which I have been guided in these reductions is that the borrower should not be compelled to pay more than he can reasonably be expected to pay from his earnings with the boat, and it has seemed to me to be a fair criterion of this sum to fix it at the present value of the boat. That means that the fisherman will not be liable to pay more than the sum which he would have to pay if he were to-day to buy the boat which he is using at the price which it would fetch in the market as between a willing buyer and a willing seller in its present condition. I have had the boats inspected and valued on this basis. That has been the general principle on which I act, but there are certain exceptions.

Deputies will remember that there had been an earlier proposal to remit the loans made between 1917 and 1923 under which there would have been certain fixed proportions of the original debt written off, based on the estimated excess of the cost of the boat or gear over what might be considered the normal cost. Certain persons would have benefited more under that scheme than under the arrangements to which I have referred. We are giving to those persons the full benefit of what they would have got under the other proposal. In addition, there are a number of loans included in those that I have referred to for quite small boats, costing at the outside less than £20, in regard to which it was considered inadvisable to apply the criterion of the present value because of the expense of going around to value them. These were not at any time so burdensome as the large ones. There were never such inflated prices paid for these, nor were they so seriously affected by the decline in fishing.

As to the poorer classes of fishermen, I propose to lighten their burdens, having regard to the depressed seasons they have experienced. So far I have been dealing with the cases of fishermen who made an honest attempt to meet the liabilities. There are, I regret to say, a few cases in which men obtained loans for expensive boats either before the European war or in the earlier years of the war, and made very substantial earnings with the boats. They have notoriously not acted in the way one would expect in the matter of the repayment of their debts. I am glad to say that there are very few of such cases now. I think it would be wrong to treat them in such a way as we propose to treat those fishermen who, through no fault of their own, were unable to meet their liabilities.

How many of such cases would there be?

Not more than eleven or twelve.

Involving how much?

I will probably be able to tell you when replying. I would not be able to say off-hand now. One of these cases is for a very considerable sum. We know that a very large sum was earned by the boats during the war and was invested in property and we are excluding that case entirely from the scope of the Bill. In other cases where the default was not quite so flagrant I propose to reduce the obligation to a sum not exceeding the present value of the boat and to make it a condition of the reduction that they pay the difference between the present value of the boat and the sum to which we are writing it down immediately.

Are these boats now operating as fishing boats and not lying up.

I think all except one. In every case in which the reduction is given I propose to make it a condition that the borrower shall become a member of the Sea Fisheries Association and that the boat shall be treated as if taken from the Association under their hire purchase system, and therefore to be paid for out of the catch. But the borrower will have to sign a contract with the Association and he will be bound by that contract. In this way there will be a better guarantee for the payment of the reduced obligations of the fishermen to the Association. I trust we will never again be faced with a position such as we are dealing with now.

This will also be a great relief to the sureties. I have said that the sureties will not be released from their obligations in respect of the reduced amounts due, but under the arrangement I propose, and assuming that each of the parties in the transaction acts in an honest and straightforward manner, the liability of the sureties should prove to be largely nominal.

It had been my intention to attach to the Bill a schedule giving particulars of the remissions proposed to be made, but there are some 752 cases involved and I was advised that it would be inappropriate to attach so lengthy a schedule to a Bill of this kind. I propose, however, to lay on the Table of the House at a later date a statement of the reductions made.

The figure which I have mentioned will indicate that the matter is being dealt with in no niggardly fashion. I am satisfied, however, that it will be in the interests of the industry and in the public interest that the measures taken should not fall short of what is necessary to enable every bona fide fisherman to make a fresh start with no greater burden than he can reasonably be expected to bear. What I have said covers, I think, every section of the Bill except Section 4. The object of this section is to give powers to write off any loans outside the particular loans now being dealt with, when it is clear they are irrecoverable. There has been some doubt whether the Minister for Finance had power to do this until every legal process for the recovery of the sum due had been exhausted. This section will in future enable the Department to refrain from setting the law in motion against the fisherman who may be unfortunate in his calling, or otherwise in poor circumstances and unable to meet his liability. This will save expenses in prosecution and avoid the infliction of unnecessary hardship where the money is irrecoverable.

Will the Minister say whether the statement of the particulars of these 752 cases will be laid on the Table before the Committee Stage?

I do not think it will. I do not think it would serve any purpose to discuss individual cases. There will be a full statement given, full particulars of each individual case, and I think it would be very inappropriate that individual cases should be bandied about in the House, that in the case of John Sullivan, for instance, who is to have his debt reduced by £50, a Deputy should get up and propose that it should be reduced by £60. I do not intend to lay a statement of the particulars of these cases on the Table of the House until the Bill is passed.

I assure the Minister that I have no intention of making use of the document for the purpose of discussing individual cases, but I think it would be useful to have it.

Once the Deputies know that there are 752 cases involving a total sum of £101,515 18s. 10d., less a small sum that we estimate we will get for 21 boats that we are taking up, I think that ought to be sufficient information for the Deputy.

What is the total amount outstanding as against that £101,515 18s. 10d.? In other words, what is the amount that the Minister suggests he will eventually recover?

There are recent loans by the Department, and we are not touching these at all. We are not concerned with them.

I think all the Deputies who are interested in the development of the fishing industry and in rectifying the present position so as to leave it possible for the Sea Fisheries Association to work as smoothly as possible, will be gratified that the Minister has at last taken action in this matter. I do not think he would ever have taken action if the Sea Fisheries Association had not come up against this problem in their work. That he has taken action is gratifying.

The different cases, as he has explained to the House, have been examined over a fairly long period of time by the Department, and we must take it the Minister has gone into the merits of each case, and that the Department of Finance has kept a close eye on the writing down, and have satisfied themselves that no amount will be written off as irrecoverable unless they are quite satisfied that the circumstances of the case do not afford any prospects of recovery.

Section 2 of the Bill, under which the consent of the Minister for Finance is necessary for writing down amounts, and under which certain conditions will be issued by the Minister, seems to have been fairly well explained by the Minister for Fisheries. There are twenty-three cases in which he expects to recover boats and gear for the Sea Fisheries Association. I take it these twenty-three individuals are not considered as suitable persons to receive loans in future. I take it that the Sea Fisheries Association does not intend to keep them on.

There are twenty-three such cases, and there are twenty-one boats involved. Most of the boats are not in use. A few of the boats are in the hands of persons who are not desirable, persons who would never make proper use of them, and I do not believe that they would get loans from the Association.

Is it suggested that, as well as recovering the boats and gear from these twenty-three persons, they would still have to pay?

No. We are wiping out the whole amount in their cases on condition that they hand the boats and gear to me, and I will then hand that property to the Association.

The Minister referred to 449 cases. I take it these are all pre-Treaty cases.

There might be a few fairly new cases. About 8 per cent. of the total amount written down has relation to boats borrowed from the Department, and that runs through all the cases.

With regard to the sureties, the Minister does not seem to be quite clear whether he will be able to recover from them. Perhaps he will be able to give the House some further information. Naturally, we would be quite glad if the Minister could recover all the money, but it seems to me that the sureties are placed in a very invidious position because of the circumstances to which the Minister has pointed. The depression in the fishing industry and other matters have probably affected the sureties just as much as the fishermen. I wonder what is the exact legal position? Is the Minister really able to recover, or has he recovered in any such case? Has he been able to bring the law to bear on these sureties? It is just as well that we would leave as little as possible hanging over, particularly as the Minister has pointed out that great legal expense and administrative expense would be incurred in trying to recover money, even if the Department believe there is a good prospect of recovery.

I think the arrangement is a good one in regard to the cases where fishermen are now operating the boats and where the Department propose to leave them these boats and charge them only the present market value. In other words, the Department will depreciate them and will give the fishermen the full benefit of whatever fall in value may have occurred. I am not quite clear as to the number of cases connected with small boats, or the amount involved. I take it that that is really a minor matter. With regard to the twelve individuals, the Minister apparently considers one case a very special case and I will not now attempt to deal with it. The other eleven cases are cases in which he will give an additional reduction, provided immediate payment of the amount due is made.

That is a very good principle. If the principle of maximum reduction in consideration of immediate payment were extended as far as possible, it would be a very good thing. It is much better to strike a bargain in these cases and try to get rid of the thing than to make any arrangement for paying by instalments. In the long run, what we would seem to gain by adopting the instalment system we would lose in administrative expenses. Very often we find the individuals who undertake responsibility and sign contracts to pay off by instalments are really not able to pay when the time comes. I am in favour of getting them to pay up as soon as possible and give them the maximum allowance that the Departments consider they ought to get.

Even if the Minister considers that these cases are not suitable for full discussion here, I suggest he should allow Deputies to meet officials of the Department to discuss those cases. We would all like to be quite clear on these cases and to have this matter closed definitely. I think the Minister can envisage that Deputies will have cases brought under their notice even after he has taken action. It will be much better in the long run to have the fullest possible information given by officials to Deputies from the areas affected.

I also welcome the introduction of this Bill. I am glad that the Minister has faced this problem at last. There is in the Bill a certain disquieting feature and that is that a Government Department is about to be given the power of remission and reservation of debts. I think that is a very dangerous precedent and a rather bad principle. I must confess I do not see any solution except that we make a clean sweep of the lot and decide that we will not grant this power. Anxious as I am to recover any State moneys that are recoverable, and disliking as I do that anybody who ought to pay should get a chance of evading his responsibility, I think it is unwise to grant such power of reservation or remission of debts to any Government Department. I would be better pleased if there was a clean sweep made of the whole lot—if the whole thing were written off as irrecoverable. To deal with it satisfactorily otherwise would seem to demand some sort of commission or tribunal before which the case from the public point of view could be made and also the case for remission on the part of those who might claim remission. It is obvious that that would be a cumbersome procedure and it might involve considerable expense. That is my feeling on looking at this Bill.

I doubt very much whether, from a public point of view, it would not be much better if we wrote off the whole thing as irrecoverable; that is, excepting cases where we would be in a position to recover the whole amount. Even in that instance the cases should be specifically mentioned. In my opinion, we should otherwise be doing something fundamentally bad and unsound, because we would be giving powers of remission and reservation of debts to a Government Department. That is a dangerous step, and if there is any way of avoiding it, it should be avoided. If it is felt this money ought to be recovered for the State, some machinery of a semi-judicial character should be set up. I confess I do not exactly see how it could be done. I feel it would be cumbersome, but if some machinery of that kind could be devised I, for one, would prefer it. The Minister mentioned a sum of £11,000 as being involved.

The sum involved in the cases that are being dealt with under the Bill is £11,400.

The Minister realises that the moment he begins to operate this measure all sorts of accusations of favouritism will be levelled against the Department. The Department will have to stand up against acccusations of that kind. No matter how impartial the Department or the Minister may be, it will be difficult to prevent people feeling that they are being singled out while other people are let off. That is a situation I would not like to see develop. Although I do welcome the Bill from the point of view of writing off this irrecoverable money, I do look with a certain amount of anxiety on the introduction of a procedure of this particular kind.

I also welcome the Bill. I have been for more than four years in this House advocating the principle of the Bill and during that time, whenever the opportunity arose, I advocated the principle which Deputy de Valera has just preached of making the clean-cut and not the partial cut. I look back to June, 1927, when this matter was first before the House in my presence—it may have been discussed previously and I assume it was—and I ask myself the question, what money has been lost to the State by not doing in June, 1927, what the Minister is now doing? I feel inclined to say: "I told you so." Instead of that, I would rather take a more optimistic view and express to the Minister the gratitude of the fishermen all along my constituency, and I think I can speak for even a larger area. We have something like 110 miles of seaboard from end to end, and a voice of gratitude and thanks will go forth to the Minister for this Bill, even though it has come a little too late. I am afraid as regards the salvage of the boats that have been lying rotting on the beach for the last four years because the fishermen had not the means and the opportunity of taking them out to sea, that the Minister cannot look on the salvage as being a very valuable asset. Such as it is, however, he is quite right in doing what he can to secure the salvage for the State and allow those people to start with a clean slate.

Deputy Derrig raised the question as to the section referring to sureties and perhaps he will allow me to put his mind at rest about it. That section is essential in any transaction from a legal standpoint and the Minister may take it from me that it is entirely unobjectionable. The section is necessary and is to prevent a case being made by sureties that they were discharged by reason of an operation between their principal and the State to which they were not a party. That I take it is the object of the section, which is fairly and properly drawn and there can be no objection to it.

I have been looking for the weak spot in the Bill, not in any unfriendly spirit, and the weak spot is this, that during the last nine or ten years there have been cases along the coast of fishermen who, rather than endure the mortification of seeing their boats rotting on the beach, by pledging their own personal credit and time and, such of them as had money, their own money, kept the boats at sea. I know several such cases. The boats were kept at sea at a loss and in the best spirit. I would very much like to see that a fisherman who adopted that course would not find himself in any worse position than the man who abandoned all hope and left his boat rotting on the beach. I hope that whatever the Minister does he will see that these men who, endured with courage and strength, took all possible risks and went to sea and did what they could to carry their boats and keep themselves clear of the Department and of the debt due to the Department, will not be victimised and find that they are being placed in a worse position than their neighbours who gave up the struggle. I think we can rely on the Minister doing that. There is a very real danger of something like that happening.

There is also another danger. There are in some cases sureties who are solvent to the extent that the debt can be squeezed out of them through the medium of the sheriff. If that is done, it will leave the principal as badly off as ever. I agree that the Department can, in some instances, squeeze some of the debt out of the sureties, but the result will be that the fisherman against whom the balance is outstanding will be as badly off as he ever was, because he will have the surety down on him instead of the Department, and it will be the case of being between the devil and the deep sea. Of course I do not say that of the Department. I hope when dealing with these cases, where the sureties are perhaps a little better off than in other cases, the Minister will put them on a par with the others, and deal with the cases on their merits. I hope he will not victimise the man who by chance has not an absolute pauper as a surety, and, above all, that he will not victimise the man who had the pluck and courage to go to sea when times were bad and when the fish buyers deserted the coast because they were dealing with a decaying trade, and when the fishermen were left on their beam ends. This only refers to a very few cases, but nothing could be more regrettable than that these men should feel that the reward of their industry and work was to be victimisation. I join with Deputy de Valera in thinking that if the Minister does not make a clean sweep there will arise in these men's minds the suspicion that they are not properly dealt with. Our people are somewhat suspicious, and they will, I think, be suspicious enough to say that because they followed one leader rather than another it is being weighed against them. The clean cut I have been advocating for the last four years is the best way from the economic standing and in the interests of the State.

The Minister told us that he was contemplating putting the names of these people into a schedule to the Bill, and I agree that that would be very regrettable. It would leave it open to the House to discuss these poor men and their misfortunes, and what brought about these misfortunes. They are very poor, but they have their natural pride, and if we were to discuss whether a man's misfortune was brought about by an individual fish buyer leaving a district or for any other reason, it would be very regrettable, and in the best interests of everybody it should be avoided. I agree with Deputy de Valera that the best thing for everybody would be what I call the clean cut, and what he calls the clean sweep.

Like other Deputies in the House I welcome the introduction of this Bill. I believe it will be beneficial not alone to the fishermen but to the fishing industry generally. However, I feel that it is rather a pity that the Minister and his Department having gone so far did not go a little further, and, as Deputy de Valera suggested, make a clean sweep of the outstanding debts, so that the mill-stone hanging round the fishermen's necks might be removed. In speaking in the House when the Sea Fisheries Bill was before us, I pointed out that, in my opinion, two things were essential if the fishing industry was to be rescued from a rapidly decaying position, and if the fishermen with their wives and families were hard put to obtain a better livelihood, I pointed out that a large sum of money would be required to be devoted to the Sea Fisheries Association, and that the outstanding debts should be wiped out so that the Sea Fisheries Association would be made the success that we all desire it should be.

A certain amount of money has been put at the disposal of the Sea Fisheries Association, but in order to make that Association a complete success, I suggest to the Minister that he should go a little further than he has gone. In my opinion, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in regard to this Bill. The Minister has power to remit or to reduce certain loans. As far as these loans are concerned, I understand some of them were made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, others by the Congested Districts Board, and some by the Minister's own Department.

The Minister, in his opening remarks, did not tell us what the amount of the loans that were made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, by the Congested Districts Board, or by his own Department. If he gives us these figures we would find out that, so far as the Minister's own Department is concerned, the figure is comparatively small, compared with the figure outstanding from the Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. I venture to say that if the old Congested Districts Board were still in existence it would have agreed to wipe out the outstanding loans on boats and gear, as it did in the case of rural industries in regard to spinning-wheels and looms. I suggest even yet that the Minister should agree to the suggestion made by Deputy de Valera, that all outstanding loans should be wiped out. I quite agree with the Minister when he says that by far the bigger portion of those debts on boats is not due to dishonest motives on the part of the fishermen, but is due rather to the fact that these loans were obtained when the boats and gear were at their highest price, and the earning capacity of the boats was at the highest. The debts are also due to the fact that the catches at the present time are in many cases smaller and the price for fish obtained in some districts is not sufficient to pay for the repair of the nets. The Minister knows that in some parts of Donegal comparatively recently fishermen got only 10/- per cran for herrings.

The Minister also made reference to the fact that there is a certain amount of outstanding loans less than £20. It is true that these are comparatively small loans. I suggest to the Minister, and I think he will agree with me, that the fishermen who received these comparatively small loans obtained them either for the purpose of purchasing nets or open yawls. Although these debts are comparatively small they were incurred by the poorest of the poor fishermen and I suggest to the Minister even if he is not prepared to wipe out all debts he should, at least, in the interests of the poorer fishermen, who fish with open yawls, wipe out the smaller debts under £20. I believe if he did that he would be helping to make the Fisheries Association a success and that he would be helping not alone the fishermen but the fishing industry in general.

There are one or two cases that will crop up in the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act. The Minister said that as a condition of wiping off the loans the fishermen should join the Fisheries Association. I should like to put the case of a fisherman who has not the opportunity of fishing and who now stays at home. I would like to know what the Minister would do in his case. Is that man going to be punished?

In the case of wiping out of loans these persons, for the most part, have given up fishing; some are dead or have left the country. Naturally you cannot make them join the Association. What I mentioned was in the case of reduction of arrears is where a man has paid off so much and he would be allowed to pay a reduced amount on condition that he joined the Association. It is reductions, not remissions, that are dealt with in that case.

Mr. O'Reilly

Suppose it is a reduction and that a man intends to give up fishing. Is he going to get a reduction on his boat? Then there is the case of a man who in 1918 purchased a boat for £500. A similar boat could be bought to-day for £300. He has been paying and has already paid £300 out of the £500. I should like to know what position that man would be in. He has paid off £300 and £200 is still due. I would like to know what the Minister and the Department would do in such a case. Then there is the third suggestion about the clean cut. Has the Minister considered the suggestion of the clean cut at all on loans obtained before 1925?

I sincerely hope that the fact that the appeal is endorsed by every Party in the House will induce the devil to accept the pledge tendered to him by Deputy Wolfe for comparing him to the Minister for Fisheries. I also hope that the Minister will consider favourably the suggestion made by Deputy Wolfe that in taking into account the value that is going to be put upon an existing boat, that that portion of the value which has depended simply upon the effort of the man who used it as distinct from the man who neglected it will be taken into account. It may be rather difficult for the Minister to estimate it, but I think the principle of it is perfectly sound. I have one difficulty in connection with the Bill which either the Minister or Deputy Wolfe may be able to resolve, and that is clause 3 in relation to the sureties. It does seem to prevent, in my rough reading of it, the Minister doing perhaps the very thing he desires to do. It says that nothing in this clause will operate to relieve from liability the residue of so-and-so of any amount. It seems to me that in relation to the other clauses—I am speaking purely as a layman—that might prevent him relieving the sureties for the degree of liability which he thought they ought to be relieved. I hope that that is not so, but it would seem to be. We are here to help the Minister in the matter. It is a bit on the Minister's conscience, and it must be on the conscience of everybody when you wipe out an asset of the State, and say that a loan which has been made by the State was not in fact to be paid. I can speak with a certain amount of knowledge on the subject. I saw a good many of the best of the boats actually coming out. They were built during this particular period at very high prices. They were built very elaborately as compared with the boats to which we were accustomed. I remember the horror-stricken look on the face of an owner of a perfectly new boat which cost about £2,000 and came out for the first time in Baltimore Harbour, when I told him, with absolute knowledge of the fact, that that boat never would and never could go to sea to fish when the war was over, that she was of such a character that she could not pay her working expenses. In fact, the whole of those special boats that were built at that time were boats utterly unsuitable for the trade as it previously existed, and definitely more unsuitable for the trade which we knew would exist after the war. Except to the extent that men did make money during that period of inflated prices, and put aside money that they then earned to pay off loans, it was, on the face of it, to any one who knew the facts, impossible for them to pay out of the earnings of that boat. So the Minister may have no hesitation in wiping out, as far as the first-class boat is concerned, the whole of the money.

These boats—Deputy Wolfe and Deputy Sheehy will probably be able to speak with immediate authority— never did go to sea after the war. They never were able to pay the cost of maintaining their nets and of providing the petrol which was required to run them. As far as I know, boats of that special class that were built for the specific purpose of gathering in fish at a time of emergency during the war were derelict in Church Bay or lying dead on the coast. So the Minister need have no hesitation in removing the whole of that debt. If he could go to the extent of making a clean cut I think it would be better. There may be cases in which, according to him, it is manifestly wrong. There may be cases within his knowledge, but they must be very special and very few, in which it is manifestly wrong that some payment should not be made. Except in cases in which it is manifestly wrong then the whole of the thing should not be wiped off, I think both the justice and the economy of the proposition would be met by the clean cut.

I endorse what Deputy Flinn said in regard to the larger class of boats that were built immediately after the war. There was no scope for them. The big prices had disappeared, and the owners were simply facing bankruptcy. Now the Minister has made a great gesture, and I congratulate him upon it. I have been identified with the fishing industry for over fifty years. I was identified with the father and brother of Deputy Flinn when they did their work fifty years ago with other excellent citizens of Kinsale and around there. They established the Baltimore fishing industry. They got over the Guernsey cutters, the Browns, the Cahills and the Flinns, and they developed the fishing industry without any contribution from any State. Now these years have passed away, and a period of great depression has come, and this gesture of the Minister for Fisheries will fill the seaboard population along the entire of the County of Cork with hope, consolation and joy. They realise now with the establishment of the Fisheries Association that there is hope for themselves and their little families to get a living on the Irish seaboard.

Of course, for big fishing you must have big steamers. In the days that I speak of, forty or fifty years ago, the great spawning beds beyond the Fastnet Lighthouse were all filled with fish. At the time of the war, when there was a cessation of trawling, there was an immense amount of fish taken there, but after the war a number of minesweepers were turned into large trawlers, and they ploughed the western waves, and took the fish that our fishermen were able to eke an existence from. If there is to be any development in the deep-sea fishing, we must go on the lines of England and Scotland, and get vessels which can go to the ends of Newfoundland. Our fishermen have the heroism, and they have the knowledge of the trade, but they have not the vessels to carry them. I must say that the gesture made is an excellent one. There was a magnificent population of fishermen along our seaboard. Fifty years ago there were forty or fifty thousand of them, as brave men as you could wish to meet. The Isle of Man boats and the boats from Cornwall and France came in, and our unfortunate people had no Government to help them. There was only one person who came to their aid, that was the great Baroness Burdette Coutts. Through the late Father Davis, a distinguished clergyman and a great friend of the fishermen, she advanced thousands of pounds for these fishermen. To the honour of that lady be it said, that while she got back her capital from the honest Cape Clear fishermen, she never demanded any interest for the loan, and her memory is ever revered there.

I was down at the opening of the fishing school at Baltimore. The father of the Land League, Mr. Michael Davitt, was to attend the opening. Michael Davitt was carried down by the Town Commissioners from Skibbereen. Archbishop Croke was there, Bishop Fitzgerald. Father Davis and several others. There was one thing in connection with this historical celebration. As a compliment to the Baroness it was decided to toast the health of her Majesty at the banquet to the Baroness, as the Baroness was a generous benefactor to the fishing school. Mr. Davitt said to me: "Mr. Sheehy, we cannot join in the toast; we will go to Sherkin Island.""There is one thing, anyway," he said, "she deserves any compliment, because she came forward when no Department did so to help the fishermen of our seaboard here." We went to Sherkin, and spent a very happy day with the islanders.

I am sorry that I am not in a position, representing, as I do, a very large fishing constituency, to congratulate the Minister. I agree with the principle of the Bill, but I would like to refresh the Minister's memory with regard to the promise he made in 1927. This promise, it given effect to, would give more relief in some cases than what is proposed in the Bill. According to the Bill it will depend on the Minister or his officials whether the debts of certain people will be remitted or not.

If the Deputy were listening to my opening statement he would be aware that I said that the promises were going to be honoured; that persons who came within the 1927 scheme would get all the conditions they would have got under that scheme. That is to say, if they would have got more under that scheme than under this Bill, they will get what they would have got under the former scheme.

But there are other provisions in the Bill to which I want to draw attention. Unless a man becomes a member of the Association his case is not going to be considered. Assume for the sake of argument that certain fishermen have a genuine grievance against individual members of the Association. The Minister may be aware that such things occur. Will the Minister not favourably consider these men's claims under the Bill, together with the genuine grievance they feel they have against the Association? The Minister knows what I am referring to. I have in mind certain places where there may be friction because of certain things that took place between the Association and the fishermen. In these centres a number of the fishermen had to borrow money, and I am sure the Minister will admit that since doing so they have paid—in interest and insurance— more than the actual sum borrowed. Their position is that the principal is still outstanding against them.

Deputy Wolfe spoke of appeals that he made to the Minister to go back to 1927. I have made appeals on behalf of the Arklow fishermen that the Minister should go back to 1924. As regards the revaluation of the boats, we know that the price of them at that time was four times the price to be got for them to-day. The men have a genuine grievance in this way, that they were unable to pay back part of the principal because they were unable to get securities. Where money had to be borrowed to get gear and nets the securities had to be under 70 years of age. The result was that the fishermen had to get shopkeepers to go security for them. Not through any fault of the Minister, I admit, they got no assistance from the Department. That was due to regulations made by the Department of Finance that if a man was over 70 years of age he would not be taken as security for the loan.

The Minister referred to 21 cases in which he stated the full amount will be remitted if those concerned become members of the Sea Fisheries Association. I can tell the Minister that some of these men will not become members of the Association. The boats are worthless. I think the Association should get every assistance for the wiping out of all these arrears. Under the grant of £750,000 that is being given to the farmers, the Minister for Agriculture did not lay down the condition that a farmer would not get any portion of it if he had not paid his rates. I appeal to the Minister for Fisheries to take his courage in his hands in the same way as the Minister for Agriculture has done, and as regards these debts to wipe the slate clean from 1924. I ask him to do that for the fishermen. That will enable them to become members of the Association. It will remove from around their necks a mill-stone, in the form of boats with a high valuation involving big loans. I ask the Minister to wipe the slate clean so that these men may be able to get gear and nets and may be encouraged to fish. The posi- tion of the fishermen who have the full amount of the principal outstanding against them is very serious.

We all welcome the Bill, and hope it will encourage the fishermen to become members of the Association. As I said on the Estimate for the Minister's Department, the Minister is not doing the best thing for the Association by compelling men under this Bill to become members of it. Some of these men are nervous about certain things in connection with the Association. Even though they do not become members of it, I ask the Minister to give them some assurance that they will get the same rights and privileges as those who join. I have very definite reasons for making the appeal to the Minister. If he accedes to it, it will I believe, make for the success of the Association on the one hand, while on the other the fishermen will get good benefits. If the Minister is going to insist that all must become members of the Association, I do not believe that it will be a success in my constituency, at least, from what I know is taking place. If the Minister leaves the matter open and agrees to treat each case on its merits, whether the person concerned is a member of the Association or not, I certainly will do my part to influence every fisherman I know of to become a member of the Association. In that way, the fishermen would in time come to control the Association, and would be in a position to run it for their own benefit, and not in the interests of any individual.

I have an uneasy feeling that along the coast of Waterford and in other places there are fishermen who have struggled on in spite of very grave difficulties and succeeded in getting into a position in which they will have to pay, whilst their neighbours who have been utterly crushed by conditions will not have to pay anything. I think the Minister should respond to the appeal made from all parts of the House, and make a clean sweep of all these debts. I feel myself that the Minister is almost as much in favour of that as any member of the House, but his position is that he has to face the Department of Finance, and, therefore, has to draw the line somewhere. As the Minister has the support of every Party in the House, I think he should make a clean sweep of all these debts, which only represent a sum of about £11,000. Having regard to the fact that this section of the community more than any other has to live a life of hardship and danger, that they are the remnant of the Irish-speaking nation, more allowance should be made in their case than in others. I again suggest to the Minister that he should accept the view expressed by all Parties, and make a clean sweep of the whole matter.

Deputy Derrig made the point that he was not quite clear as to what I meant about the sureties. I stated in my opening speech that I felt it would be unfair that these sureties should bear a burden of certain liabilities because of reasons due to depreciation and so on over which they had no control. They are relieved to the same extent as the borrowers. As regards the 449 cases in which the whole sum has been wiped out, the sureties concerned are being entirely relieved of their liabilities. In the case of the £15,000 odd, where the boats have been taken up, the sureties are also relieved on condition that the boats and gear are handed over to us. In cases where there is a writing down from the bigger sum to a smaller the condition laid down is that the person for whom the sum is written down will have to become a member of the Association, while the liability of the surety that will remain will be almost nominal.

I think that in cases where there is a writing down it is only reasonable that provision should be made that the persons concerned will become members of the Association. If a person does not become a member of the Association the writing down will take place on condition that he pays the reduced amount in a lump sum. Normally, the person concerned will join the Association, and in that case, of course, will get the full benefit. The fact that he does so will practically relieve the surety of any liability, because in the future he will pay out of his catch in the ordinary way. If he has a good season he will pay more than in the case of a bad season. There will be a certain percentage deducted by the Association from his earnings. In that case, the sureties can consider themselves practically relieved. In order to safeguard the State in cases where people refuse to join the Association there is a special clause in the bill dealing with that, and it is considered necessary.

Is it necessary that a man should give up his boat and join the Fisheries Association? If he joins the Association and gives up his boat how is he going to earn anything?

In cases where you take up a boat from a man you simply look at him as a man who is not a fisherman. There will be no obligation on him to become a member of the Association. In any case, where you wipe out a debt at all there will be no obligation to join the Association. It is only in cases where you reduce the outstanding arrears in the case of men actively engaged in the fishing industry that the condition is laid down that they will become members of the Association. I have been asked to make a clean sweep. I think that what is provided in the Bill is as near a clean sweep as one could be reasonably expected to give. A clean sweep would mean not merely wiping out the £11,000 odd, but all the existing loans due to the Department. That would hardly be reasonable. People who have got loans within the last year or so are paying back in the ordinary way. The conditions under which they got them were all right. They have not changed in the meantime, and it would be unreasonable to expect that such loans should be wiped out. In the cases we are dealing with this sum of £11,000 is due mostly by people who have made pretty substantial earnings out of their boats and who will be well able to meet the remaining liabilities.

Who is to be the judge of that?

Every case has been gone into individually by an inter-departmental committee, consisting of officers of the Department of Finance and of my Department. The conditions surrounding each case have been fully examined.

With local knowledge?

Yes, through our fishery superintendents. The conditions prevailing locally were looked into. We have written down the debts to the amount which could reasonably be expected from those concerned. Deputy de Valera has expressed doubt as to the principle involved. It was because there were such doubts that it has taken so long to introduce the Bill. As I indicated in my opening speech, it sets up a dangerous precedent, one that should not be lightly entered on— that is the reduction of debts due to the State. When you do that in one case you may have an appeal from other classes in the community that they should be relieved of their liabilities. The whole question was considered time after time, and that was the cause of the delay in introducing the Bill. We were fully alive to the dangers involved in doing this, but, at the same time, we felt that it ought to be done. We are starting now a different scheme of operation. As to the sureties, they are gone for ever. Except for the fact that the present sureties will be liable for the amounts determined, there will be no sureties under the new system.

Under the Association they will be able to get loans for boats and gear without the necessity of providing securities. Deputy O'Reilly referred to the case of a borrower who had paid £500 for a boat, repaid £300 of that, thus leaving £200 due. If he were a 1918 borrower he would come under the 1927 scheme. The value of the boat would be written down. Off the original price of the boat would be taken what might be called the abnormal cost. If, for instance, the boat that he paid £500 for could be bought to-day for £300 then the original debt would be scaled down to £300, and on Deputy O'Reilly's figures his liability would be wiped out altogether.

Deputy Derrig made the point that Deputies should be allowed to see the statement which is to be laid on the Table of the House. I have no objection to that, but I want to warn Deputies that while they can see it and get information from the Department as to the basis on which we reduced a loan to a particular figure, I would not be prepared to accept any suggestions for a further reduction. I have come to an agreement with the Department of Finance as to the amount by which the loans are to be written down. If I were to accept any suggestions of the kind indicated it would mean re-opening the whole question and that would put me in an impossible position. If Deputies wish they can discuss the matter with officials of my Department, and I take it that as the statement will be published in the course of a few weeks it will be available as a public document in the library.

As to the amounts lent by the old C.D.B. and the D.A.T.I. as against the loans made by my Department, I think the amount in the case of the old C.D.B. and the D.A.T.I. was £93,000 as against £7,800 lent by my Department—that is of the £101,000 that we are writing down. Deputy Flinn wanted to know the number of cases in which the debts had not been written down to the value of the boat. There were about one dozen cases. There are, in fact, eight cases but there are eleven separate loans and the total amount outstanding in these is £8,834 8s. 11d., of which it is proposed to write off £5,062 15s. 2d., leaving the balance to be repaid. The estimated value of the boats is £1,705. In three cases only in which the debts are being written off and the boats taken up were the loans made by the Department—that is since 1923. In all other cases the loans were made by the old C.D.B. and the Department of Agriculture.

May I take it that, in the statement which the Minister is to prepare, the amount which has been paid off in respect of the eight cases which he has just referred to and the amounts paid off in the cases where the value is written down to the present market value of the boat, that the amounts paid by the respective persons will be included?

Yes. Full particulars will be given in this statement of each individual case.

Question put and agreed to.

If there is no objection, I should like to take the Committee Stage of this Bill to-morrow.

Will the Minister be able to show us that statement before the Bill goes through?

I do not suppose that this Bill would come on first to-morrow. I could make the statement available in my room in the corridor to-morrow morning for any Deputy who would like to see it.

Would the Minister say on what general basis he is working as regards arriving at the amount that a person can be reasonably expected to pay? The matter is so completely indeterminate that we cannot get any grip of it. We should like to know on what basis the Minister is proceeding.

The Committee has gone into the amounts that have been earned by the boats. They know the circumstances of each case. They know that in certain cases the parties out of their earnings of the boats have invested money in other property. I do not think it is unreasonable to make those people pay.

They have property against the earnings?

In these eight cases, will the Department be in the position of trying to recover more than the present value of the boat?

They are writing down the figure to a sum higher than the present value of the boat but there is a substantial reduction on what they owe.

Committee Stage to be taken to-morrow.

Barr
Roinn