Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Apr 1940

Vol. 79 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 58—Marine Service.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £7,194 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, 1941, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Muir-Sheirbhíse (Achtanna Loingis Cheannaíoctha, 1894 go 1933, agus an tAcht Imeall Trágha, 1933 (Uimh. 12 de 1933)), agus chun íocaíochtaí áirithe Cúitimh.

That a sum not exceeding £7,194 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, 1941, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Marine Service (Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894-1933, and the Foreshore Act, 1933 (No. 12 of 1933)), and for certain payments of compensation.

There is nothing unusual in this minor Vote which would call for attention except sub-head I. Sub-head I is included in order to enable the Government to implement the undertaking which was given in September last to provide compensation for war injuries or loss of effects suffered by the crews of Irish ships, equivalent to the compensation that would be afforded by the British Government in the case of loss of British ships. The terms of the British scheme were not known at the time and it was a condition of the undertaking that the whole question of compensation would receive reconsideration when the terms of the British scheme became available. That scheme is now being examined in the Department of Finance and perhaps it may be necessary to introduce legislation in order to give full effect to the compensation terms finally decided upon. In order to meet demands that may be pressing or that may arise before the scheme is actually before the House, it is desirable that the Dáil should approve of sub-head I. I might add that it is a token Vote of £10. So far as we can ascertain, the amount that it might be necessary to expend in a year would not be much in excess of £1,000.

Mr. O'Donovan

On this Vote I should like to refer to a matter which I raised by way of question a short time ago, that is, the matter of sea sand for agricultural purposes. At the time I raised the question, it was a matter of vital importance for farmers along the seaboard. I am glad to be able to compliment the Minister on the way he met me on that occasion and agreed to give the necessary facilities or, at least, reasonable facilities. I want to impress upon the Minister the necessity of further extending these facilities, if it is possible to do so, because I understand that not alone along the Cork coast, but in Waterford and along the seaboard generally, sand is drawn from the shore for the purpose of adding to farmyard manure. It is an essential requisite for the production of crops. Long before I was born sand was drawn a distance of 20 miles or more on horseback by people in these areas. Two bags of sand were carried on each horse and that sand was sold as artificial manure is sold to-day. The landlords at the time encouraged the use of it, in the production of corn, by giving a subsidy for corn so grown. The landlord would buy all the oats that was grown on a farm on which the sand had been used and pay a higher price for it than was given in the local markets. It was recognised a very long time ago that sand was necessary for the production of cereals and also for the production of root crops such as turnips, mangolds and beet.

Whilst recognising that the Foreshores Act has to be enforced, I see that the amount collected in fees is very small. The total amount mentioned in the Appropriations-in-Aid as receipts from this source is only £110. I think that under existing conditions, when there are so many restrictions on the supply of artificial manures, the Minister should give all the assistance possible to farmers in this connection for the carting of sand all the year round.

In case there is any misunderstanding, I want the Minister to differentiate between sea sand and sea gravel. Many people have been prevented from removing sea gravel or horse sand owing to the danger of erosion. I know the Cork coast pretty well, and, as far as I know, the sand removed by farmers is not sea gravel, but stand for manurial purposes. That is a fine sand, containing a certain quantity of lime, and its use is healthy and beneficial for the land. I do not know any cases of erosion that have arisen owing to the carting of sand of that description. I should, therefore, like the Minister to differentiate between that fine stand and sea gravel. The gravel is a coarser commodity, and it is found on a higher surface than sea sand. Owing to the intensive building drive, a large quantity of this coarser sand has been carted from the foreshores for use in the building of concrete houses. In many cases that has been the cause of erosion. I do not know any case, as I say, in which the removal of fine sea sand has been the cause of erosion. I hope the Minister will take cognisance of this particular point, and that there will be no attempt made to prevent people from carting fine sea sand. The removal of gravel which has given rise to erosion has been principally at the instance of the county councils and the Minister's officials. As the Minister met me so graciously when I raised this question about a month ago, I do not want to stress the point further than to ask him to continue, and if possible to extend, the relaxations while war conditions exist, owing to the lack of artificial manures.

Another question to which I should like to refer has reference to the fees which people are charged for the removal of this sand. I should like to point out that people along the coastline are paying a very heavy fee for this privilege of removing sand in the higher valuation of their land. Under Griffith's valuation, farmers along the seaboard, convenient to sand and seaweed, had their land valued very highly as a result of their proximity to such sand and seaweed. They are paying as much as 10 per cent. extra on their valuation for their proximity to sand and seaweed. It would not be fair to deprive these people of the benefits which they have paid for in this way, whilst others, who merely pay a small fee of 5/-, can cart it with lorries long distances. People living convenient to the shore should not be further penalised than they are at the moment. In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to give consideration to what I have said, and I thank him for what he has done recently.

General MacEoin

I am rather disappointed that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is in charge of this Vote, has not made some comment upon the marine service generally. He is new to the Department and I know that he has considerable energy. I expected that, when this Vote would come up, he would be in a position to tell us that some headway had been made in the establishment of a marine service. This marine service is of a very mild type and the functions it discharges are not very important from the State point of view. I would like the Minister to tell us whether his Department has made any survey of the establishment of a marine service having ships of its own belonging to the State, or of the formation of a company for trans-Atlantic shipping.

Everyone knows that in the European war of 1914-18, Norway succeeded in building up a mercantile marine that put it in a very sound financial position. At the moment we find that we have no contact with the United States, the "greater Ireland beyond the seas", that we have to travel via Genoa or similar places. At a time like this I would expect the Minister— when he has got the opportunity of coming in fresh to a department—to use his energy to build up such a service. It is very important that a mercantile marine should be built up here and that tourists be carried in Irish ships from the United States to this country. That is an opportunity which could be availed of. We know that one of the very important services of this State—Hospitals' Trust—has been very severely interfered with and practically wiped out of existence through the lack of shipping accommodation. Both the Hospitals' Trust and the Government should have taken steps, through the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to build up such a service as I mention. I expected that, on this particular Vote, the Minister would have told us that he was having this matter examined and that he hoped to put Ireland on the map as a mercantile nation and that ships would ply between this country and the United States in a very short time. When the Minister is replying, I hope he will refer to this and tell us what progress has been made in the matter.

Mr. MacEntee

I will bear in mind what Deputy O'Donovan has said as to the need for making a distinction between sea-shore sand and sea-shore gravel. I think that my Department is aware of the difference between them. I would not, however, undertake to override the opinion of my technical advisers in regard to the danger or otherwise of removing any foreshore material from the coastline. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate what my position would be if I ventured to do so. I do not think that the fee charged for sea-shore sand is excessive or unreasonable. So far as I have ascertained, there is, in fact, no charge at all for the first 25 tons of material removed and it is 10/- per ten tons afterwards. I do not think that makes much difference, even to the poorest farmer who may need sea sand.

Mr. O'Donovan

They had free sand up to now, and there is a little grumbling over this.

Mr. MacEntee

The real position is that we have to keep control over its removal. That is why fees are charged at all, to make sure that the formalities will be complied with.

On the point raised by Deputy MacEoin, I think that the title of the Vote has misled him. This service is required in order to secure compliance with the Merchant Shipping Acts in respect of ships registered in this country wherever located, and in respect of ships registered elsewhere than in Irish ports. It has nothing to do with marine transport or with the ownership or establishment of a mercantile marine. In that connection, I would say that this matter may arise for discussion later on, on the main Estimate, and I may then be in a position to say something in regard to that matter, principally from the viewpoint of the difficulties which would have to be surmounted. It must be remembered that it is comparatively easy to put some millions of money into ships but quite another thing to hold those ships when they have been bought.

General MacEoin

One could make a good try.

Vote put and agreed to.