Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 31 - 10 July, 1929

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 54—Fisheries.

The President: I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £27,897 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tailte agus Iascaigh agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na hOifige sin.

That a sum not exceeding £27,897 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, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, and of certain Services administered by that Office.

Minister for Lands and Fisheries (Mr. F. Lynch): This Estimate for the expenses of administration of the sea and inland fisheries and for the carrying on of rural industries differs little from that presented to the House last year. It does not give evidence of that resuscitation and development of the fishing industry which the Government and Deputies desire and towards the realisation of which I shall shortly [652] introduce a Bill, the main outlines of which have received the approval of the Executive Council but some of the details of which still require settlement. The proposals in the Bill will involve, at a later date, my laying before the House a Supplementary Estimate for these services.

Deputies will see that the principal variations in this Estimate as compared with that for last year are an increase of £3,320 in Sub-head A for salaries, a decrease of £3,970 in sub-head E for fishery services, and a fall of £1,965 in the sum estimated to be realised under Sub-head 1, Appropriations-in-Aid.

The increase in the provision for salaries is accounted for by the recent appointment of a Secretary of the reconstituted Department which now embraces the Land Commission and the old Department of Fisheries. This is an additional post and it is the intention that this officer should be sufficiently free from the routine work of this large Department to devote his undivided attention to certain necessary tasks of reorganisation and to the carrying out of the Government decisions embodied in the White Paper on the recommendations of the Gaeltacht Commission. A small sum has been taken for additional staff to assist him in these duties but Deputies will appreciate that some of the decisions in the White Paper involve the carrying out of schemes of considerable magnitude and that as the plans for these mature it will be necessary to come to this House for further Votes either for my Department or for other Departments concerned in carrying out these schemes. I shall have something to say later as to what has already been done in these matters.

In the discharge of the duty which the Government have placed upon me of seeing that the decisions in the White Paper are carried into effect, I have the assistance of a Committee, including very able officers of high standing in other Departments, the activities of which affect the Gaeltacht, for the purpose of coordinating these activities in the [653] Gaeltacht, and I am glad to bear testimony to the zeal and enthusiasm with which that Committee has tackled its work and to the very great assistance afforded to me by the technical knowledge and experience of its members.

The reduction in the sub-head for Fishery Services is apparent rather than real because certain items included under this sub-head last year are now comprised in Vote No. 11— Office of Public Works. If Deputies will turn to page 51 of the Estimates Book they will find provision made there for fishery stores and stations, £750; hatcheries and fishery lodges, £420; making a total of £1,170; and on page 46 they will see £1,000 set down for the dredging of fishery harbours, thus accounting for £2,170 of the £3,970, and the balance represents a reduction in the sum proposed for the purchase of fishery requisites and the elimination of £1,100 which was voted last year for the organisation of fishermen but was not availed of. Deputies will understand from what I shall have to say later on the reasons for these two reductions.

The item of grants to Boards of Conservators and Local Fisheries Associations which last year appeared as one item has this year been divided under two headings.

I should call attention to a clerical error in the item, “Office Accommodation” (Vote 11) in the footnote on page 230 of the Estimates Book. The figure of £13,303 as shown includes £5,491 for the Land Commission, which Deputies will see is also debited in the footnote relating to that Department on page 225. Then there is a sum of £7,020 in respect of Fisheries and Rural Industries for items which last year appeared on this Vote and which, as I have explained, are this year borne on the Vote for the Office of Public Works. The total for “Office Accommodation,” therefore, for the Fisheries Office for the current financial year is £792 as compared with last year's figure of £442, the increase being explained mainly by a provision of £250 for [654] the installation of electric lighting in the offices in Kildare Place.

I propose that there should be set up a Sea Fisheries Co-operative Association which will in future deal with the supply of boats and gear and will be in a position to assist the fishermen in the marketing of their catch. Normally the Central Council will conduct the business of the Association, but having regard to the fact that this will be an entirely new departure, and that there will be a variety of problems to be tackled at the outset of the Association's career, the Government will assist the Association in securing competent men, and my Department will place at its disposal any advice or expert assistance which it may require in its initial years. The coast will be divided into regional areas which will elect representatives to a Central Council.

I have said that the Association will deal with the provision of boats. Before saying how it is proposed that this should in future be done, I think I ought to correct a widespread but erroneous belief that the fishing community have habitually in the past failed in the discharge of their obligations for loans for the purchase of boats.

There are no fair grounds for that suspicion. In March, 1913, when a very large number of loans had been made by the Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture, aggregating very large sums, the total instalments in arrear amounted to £3,615 in the case of the Congested Districts Board, and £1,945 in the case of the Department of Agriculture These figures do not represent bad debts, but the instalments which had fallen due at that date and had not been promptly paid. After that normal, pre-war year came the war and conditions greatly changed. The equipment of the fishery folk increased very greatly in price. At the same time the fish increased greatly in value and during the whole war period the fishermen paid their way. In 1919 the arrears [655] on loans stood at something under £3,000. Then came the post-war slump. The price of fish fell very considerably. During the time of high prices the fishermen had bought very dear boats and they found themselves saddled with a burden which they were not able to meet.

The position is now that the arrears of loans stand at £120,000. The whole blame for this state of affairs cannot be justly laid on the shoulders of the fishermen. If the proposals to which I have referred had been in operation during the period from 1914 to 1919, a much greater part of the high earnings would have been used for the purpose of discharging the purchase prices of the boats and for creating the necessary reserves for their upkeep. While I do not go so far as to say that they would be a complete remedy for the similar ills which might follow another upheaval of that sort, I do say that they would greatly mitigate them. During 1914 to 1919 the fishermen paid their way. That is to say, they paid their instalments normally as they fell due. They did not attempt to pay off their liabilities when they were getting the high prices. They merely paid their way. If the proposals to which I refer now had been in operation during that time, probably the total loans would be cleared off. Boats will, under my proposals, be supplied to competent fishermen who apply for them.

There will be no necessity for the fishermen desiring to own a boat to obtain securities for the repayment of the cost of the boat, a requirement which in the past has constituted a real difficulty and has imposed on well-disposed guarantors a liability which, in my opinion, the nation cannot reasonably expect them to undertake. The repayments will be secured in another and, I think, a more satisfactory way. The fish caught by any boat provided by the Association will, so long as there is any part of its cost remaining unpaid, be marketed under the supervision [656] of the Association. The Association will retain the greater part of the share of the catch ordinarily taken by the owner and will hand over the remainder, so that the fishermen will get the share which they have always got, and the owner, if he is a fisherman, will get that share and the part of the owner's share which is not retained. It is, in my opinion, axiomatic that a fisherman-owner cannot be expected to pay more for his boat in any given period than the boat, properly managed, will earn. He will be relieved of the constant anxiety which has beset him in the past as to whether or not there will be sufficient money earned to meet the half-yearly instalment when it falls due. In good seasons he will pay more; in bad seasons he will pay less. The share of the earnings which is usually taken by the owner is based on long usage and experience, and I am satisfied that the part which it is proposed to retain will give the fund adequate security, while the principle which I have stated will enable the fisherman-owner to put to sea with a mind freed from financial uncertainty and with an incentive to devote all his energies to the pursuit of his calling.

The money retained will be applied also to the insurance of the boat under a scheme of insurance against total loss and certain other risks and to the provision of a reserve for the repair and maintenance of the boat. The latter provision, that the repair and upkeep of the boat, particularly in the case of a large boat, shall be foreseen and shall be provided against from the very outset of its career, is vitally important. The expenses of repairs, instead of falling with crushing weight on the owner at intervals during the life of the boat, will be distributed over the whole period of its life. In the early years, when little or no repair is needed, a sum will nevertheless be set aside and will accumulate against the day when, in the ordinary course of things, heavy repairs will be inevitable. The Association will see that the boat is kept in good condition and there will [657] be an encouragement for the owner to take care of the boat, inasmuch as whatever is not spent out of the reserve will go towards the earlier liquidation of the purchase price of the boat. Experience in the insurance of fishing boats against loss and damage in other countries has not been an entirely unchequered one, but I have provided safeguards which will, I think, take away any disinclination—if it should in any case arise—to use every effort to avoid or minimise loss or damage.

Normally, the fisherman desiring to become the owner of a boat should be prepared to put up a part of the price of the boat in advance and this would ordinarily be a guarantee of good faith and good intention and a reasonable measure of security for the person supplying the boat. It is common practice in every such transaction. The Government realise, however, that the state of the fishing industry is to-day far from normal and, therefore, while it will be part of the scheme that at least 20 per cent. of the cost shall be so advanced by the purchaser, this condition may during the first ten years be waived by the Association in the case of any fishermen about whose abilities and standing it is satisfied. There is this necessary corollary, however, that if after the supply of a boat the Association is satisfied that the purchaser, through want of capacity or effort, does not show a prospect of paying for the boat in a reasonable time, they may take up the boat from him.

It is necessary also to deal with the existing situation resulting from the abnormal conditions I have referred to, following the late European War. Many loan-borrowers find themselves in a position in which they are saddled with obligations beyond their ability to pay. Deputies will remember earlier discussions of this matter. Following those discussions, certain decisions were come to, which meant a uniform writing down of the total obligations of the borrowers with reference to the dates at which the boats were supplied. I always felt some misgivings about that arrangement, as to whether it [658] would result in rather unfair treatment as between individual cases. We have now a new proposal, that there should be a committee set up at once to investigate the circumstances of each case and to report. This is being done and the committee is being set up. I think that, as a solution of the situation and as a purely business transaction, that is the preferable course in everybody's interest.

In Sub-head F of the Vote, the total provision for rural industries shows a small increase, but it will be seen that under the head “development” there is a decrease of some £3,000, accounted for by a reduction of £1,280 in the sum for wages and allowances and £1,700 in the sum for purchase of materials.

I have had under careful review the position and character of these establishments which were taken over from the late Congested Districts Board. They are chiefly devoted to the production of knitted goods such as cardigans, pullovers, etc., and of crochet work and lace-making. They were always regarded by the Congested Districts Board as mainly instructional in purpose, it being thought that by the training of a number of skilled workers the setting up of undertakings on a commercial basis might be encouraged. This anticipation has not, however, to any appreciable extent been realised.

In the past the instructresses have been left in the position that they had themselves to find markets for their output in addition to the supervision of the manufacture, and this has always proved a very great burden and anxiety on them and has seriously impeded any prospect of putting the establishments on an economic basis. It will be seen from a comparison of the sum of £18,320, being the cost of their upkeep, with the sum of £11,840 under the Appropriations-in-Aid expected to be realised, that they impose a very heavy annual burden on public funds. I am taking steps radically to alter the position in regard to them. They constitute, in my view [659] the nucleus of a very useful industrial organisation in the Gaeltacht, in which they are chiefly situate. I am anxious to see it greatly expanded, but on the present basis of the heavy annual loss expansion would not be possible. It would be only practicable if I could put the organisation on a self-supporting basis or on some footing more approaching that basis than is at present the case. I propose to treat them not as instructional but as industrial establishments conducted on a factory basis. There is, I am glad to say, a high degree of technical skill on the part of the trained workers and I have no grounds for misgiving as to the quality and the output of work of which the workers are capable.

It is necessary, however, that they should be afforded access to larger and steadier markets and that the work of the establishments should be co-ordinated. With these objects in view I am arranging to set up a central warehousing and selling depôt in Dublin with agents in this country and in other countries. Premises have already been secured for the purpose. At this depôt the goods will be examined to ensure that they are free from defects and are properly made and finished. The depôt will receive and distribute the orders. Each establishment will be engaged in manufacturing a particular type of garment. By standardising the work in this way I hope that greater skill will be acquired, resulting in a larger output per worker. I am also installing new machinery. I propose that the work should be regular and constant, and although the piece-work rates per operation may be less, I anticipate that the worker will receive a larger weekly wage. The putting into operation of these changes will probably in some cases occasion some temporary dislocation and possibly some misunderstanding, but I am confident that, with patience, when they begin to have their full effect, they will result in giving the workers a feeling of greater confidence and, I hope, an increased reward.

[660] One grave factor in the present situation in regard to these industries is the heavy drain by emigration on the trained workers. In the past I am afraid the assistance which has been provided has been a means only of aiding emigration. I hope that the provision of more constant and regular employment will do something to counteract that tendency. I propose also that the appointments as manageresses should in future be reserved as an avenue of improvement for the more competent workers. In the past ladies from different parts of the country have been brought in to take charge and, while I highly appreciate the good work which has been done by these ladies in the establishment of these industries, and have no desire in any way to disturb the existing arrangements so far as they are concerned, I think that in the altered character of the undertakings, in which the work will be less responsible and less varied, future openings should be reserved for the workers in the classes, and for Irish-speaking girls especially. When I say that the work will be less responsible and less varied I mean to convey that under the proposed arrangement the central depôt will attend to the marking and designing. All that work will be taken from the shoulders of those in charge of the classes, and their work will be purely the supervision of the work of manufacture.

Under this sub-head there is provision for the necessary instructions and materials for the revival of the Donegal tweed industry. Deputies will be aware that this industry had almost disappeared as a result of the use of shoddy yarns during the European War. The Gaeltacht Commission recommended that steps should be taken for its revival on a satisfactory footing with a Government stamp of quality and in a wider range of patterns more in keeping with modern demands. There are in this matter two distinct schools of thought. One school maintains that the demand for a tweed made from homespun yarns has ceased to [661] exist or there is a very limited demand and that if the industry is to be re-established on any broad foundation it must be on the basis of the use mainly of mill spun yarns. The other school regards the use of anything but homespun as anathema. I have so far declined to commit myself to either of these two dogmas. I am anxious to see the use of homespun yarns developed to the greatest possible extent as that industry provides more widespread employment for a greater number of workers. It is said, however, by the experts that certain tweeds of a light weight for which there is a considerable demand in the United States and elsewhere cannot be produced from homespun yarns and certainly not from yarns spun from the wool of the black-faced sheep found in Donegal. I am having experiments made to ascertain what is the lightest weight of material which can be woven with yarns spun in the cottages from the finer wools produced in other parts of this country. I am anxious that no decision should be taken which will limit in any way the legitimate expansion of this industry which is so important to many of the people in the Gaeltacht and which, adequately developed, may confer very widespread benefits. I am not, therefore, at present disposed to rule out entirely the use of mill spun yarns if certain cloths for which there is a demand can be made only from those yarns.

A wide range of new designs has been prepared by the instructor at present stationed at Ardara, the centre of the industry in Donegal. I am glad to say that large numbers of these designs have met with a very favourable reception in the quarters in which they have been exhibited. These have been made from mill spun yarns as local wool for home spinning was not available before the clip which has just now taken place. There are certain difficulties in the way of reproducing the whole range of these designs in home spun yarns from the local wool quite apart from the question of the weight of the resultant material, but so far as practicable they will be reproduced [662] in home spuns. All these operations are necessarily slow but they are essential preliminaries to the formulation of a complete scheme for the re-establishment and extension of the industry. In the meantime I have made such temporary arrangements as will enable those weavers who are available to resume the making of the tweeds and to that extent the revival of the industry has already begun.

The sum taken for loans for industrial purposes has been increased from £200 to £3,300. This sum has been taken for the purpose of making advances to assist, by loans on approved security, private concerns establishing industries in the Gaeltacht or existing undertakings which it may be desired to expand. I have made certain proposals on the question of assistance to private industrial undertakings in the Gaeltacht and these are under examination by the Minister for Finance. It may be convenient here for me to say something generally about what has been done in coordinating the work of all the Departments of State in the improvement of the economic conditions of the Gaeltacht. Deputies will understand that many other Departments are concerned with actual schemes. Attention having been called to the extent to which potatoes exceptionally liable to disease are still used for seed in Connemara and the Arran Islands, and to the absence of facilities for obtaining reliable seed potatoes here, the Department of Agriculture this spring undertook the provision and sale of a quantity of certified seed potatoes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Lynch: I am glad to say that these facilities were very widely availed of and that the step will go far to improve the position there in regard to this staple food of the people. The provision of permanent facilities for the purchase of good seed in this area in which the usual trade facilities are not at present available is under consideration. A [663] similar step was taken to supply seed potatoes in Tory Island, with the co-operation of the parish priest. In view of the extent to which the families on this island are dependent on the fishing, and in view of the risk of distress should the fishing at any time fail, the question of providing some additional means of livelihood for some of the islanders is under examination. Steps have already been taken by the Department of Agriculture to improve the breed of cattle on the island.

The question of transport to and from the islands off the mainland in order to mitigate the extent of their isolation is being investigated, and I hope that before next winter it will be possible to do something in this direction, in the cases of some of the islands at least.

A scheme has been formulated by the Department of Agriculture for improving the breeds of poultry in the Gaeltacht so that a larger supply of eggs may be produced at those seasons when there is a scarcity and high prices prevail, This is a source of income in the Gaeltacht which is capable of considerable improvement and, although the scheme must be modest in its inception and must be slow in development, I regard its ultimate results as of great importance.

Steps have been taken by my Department this year to see whether the burning of kelp, which usually takes place about this period of the year, can be carried on in a manner which will produce more satisfactory results from the point of view of the gatherers of the weed, and of the buyers of the kelp, and whether in this way the value and price of the kelp can be improved. This industry might, I think, if put on a more satisfactory footing than is at present the case, be of much greater value to the people along the coast, and I hope that as a result of the experimental work carried out this season it will be possible to take some measures to encourage the larger collection of the weed in [664] future seasons and better methods of burning. The questions of reclamation and reafforestation in the Gaeltacht are under examination. A very important and urgent question is that of the provision of improved housing. This problem has been very carefully examined, and I shall, at the earliest possible date, introduce a Bill giving effect to proposals which have now been accepted by the Government. There will be provision for grants for new buildings and for loans to supplement the grants where necessary. It is the intention to deal, in the first instance, with the poorest and most unsatisfactory areas, and with the worst cases in those areas, and a preference will be given to those households in which Irish is the home language. I also propose that an effort should be made to assist the families to increase their earnings. No new house will be provided unless there exists, or will be provided, suitable accommodation for poultry and pigs, where these can reasonably be kept.

I have not in this short survey exhausted the activities of my own Department and other departments in relation to the economic conditions in the Gaeltacht, but I hope I have said enough to satisfy Deputies that no time is being lost in giving effect to the Government decisions embodied in the White Paper on the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission. The process of improving the economic condition there can, at best, be slow, but I hope it will go steadily forward. There is no change in Sub-head G, relating to Fishery Protection. This whole question, the present position of which is not satisfactory, has been engaging my attention for some time past. It involves some important and difficult questions relating to territorial water and extra-territorial water. The position has been examined, and it seems inevitable that some fresh legislation will be necessary, and this matter is under consideration in connection with the Bill to which I have already referred. In Sub-head 1 it will be seen that there is a reduction in the receipts from schemes of fishery development. This [665] is due to the fact that, having in mind the proposals which I have explained earlier, the services under Sub-head E have been somewhat curtailed. The receipts from rural industries have been put at a lower figure than last year, because the latter figure was found to be in excess of the amount in fact realised. I contemplate, however, the reorganisation and expansion of these industries, and it will probably be necessary for me to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for these services at a later date.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Derrig to move his amendment.

Tomás O Deirg: Labhairfadh Proinnsias O Fathaigh, Teachta, ar dtús.

Mr. Fahy: The President, in bringing in a motion for the closure some time ago, recommended us to be brief and pithy in our discussion of these Estimates. I shall endeavour to do so. The Minister for Lands and Fisheries spoke of having explained the activities of his Department, but I would rather say that he devoted three-fourths of his speech to promises of things to be done in the autumn or early winter and very little to what was done, or not done, by his Department last year. We had a White Paper before the House more than a year ago, and it had then been in existence, I think, for a year, but it is still a White Paper; it is still white, so far as any assistance for the Gaeltacht is concerned. This is a very important Vote because it covers what was at one time the Congested Districts Board, the reserves of whose funds were taken over by the Government. What has become of them we know not. Certainly the Gaeltacht has not got the benefit of them. We have many promises in regard to housing in the Gaeltacht and we are told that a Bill will be brought in in the autumn to provide for the building of houses for the poor people there. The proper time to build houses is now, in the fine weather. When the rains come in October and [666] November no building can be done. We may therefore consider that that matter has been postponed for another twelve months. We are told that the fisheries are in a bad way. They are practically nonexistent in Cleggan and Arran. There are Deputies here who, I am sure, can recollect the time when fifty carts carried fish daily from Cleggan to Clifden, but there is not one now. Here, again, we are told that another Bill will be introduced when certain things are considered. They must, in fact, all have their considering caps on when they are considering these matters, but that is very little comfort to those who have to leave the Gaeltacht and emigrate. We are told that a good deal of money is being spent on fostering the Irish language. That, of course, is all right if it is rightly spent, but what, for instance, is the use of spending money on providing for a water supply if you neglect the reservoir? It is money lost. That is just what is being done. If you do not save the Gaeltacht you are simply laying the pipes and neglecting the reservoir.

There are rural industries and schools for lace-making and so on which, we are told, are to be the nucleus of industrial development. Take one example. There is a lace school in Clifden, but it has been closed, and I do not know what is being substituted for it. Monsignor MacAlpine received a letter some time ago in which it was stated:

“The Minister for Lands and Fisheries has had under consideration the question of the industrial centre of Clifden. The upkeep and maintenance of this centre have been considered and are not commensurate with the poor results obtained. The benefit derived by the very few workers attending has been small, and after full consideration the Minister is forced to the conclusion that the cost to the State of maintaining the centre does not justify its retention, and I am accordingly to inform you that it has been decided to close it down.”

[667] That, I suppose, is also a nucleus of industrial development. We would like to have heard more regarding the housing proposals; also as to what has been done in regard to the development of the homespun industry in Donegal and elsewhere, and what use will be made of the lace schools and other rural industries. It is all very fine to be promised that we will have Bills in the autumn, but we would like to know what has been done by a Department which spends 40 per cent. of its money on administration without, so far as we can see, at any rate, any results either in the way of stopping emigration or helping industry. I have had letters from people in Arran and other places asking when they will get grants for houses and for replacing their nets, and when I write to the Department about them the only reply I get is that the matter is under consideration. The season for building has practically gone by and these people have no chance of building houses now and no chance of catching fish. We are told, as I say that the matter is under consideration. What consideration, I wonder, will these people get in the autumn or winter?

In regard to kelp, some time ago there was talk of establishing an iodine factory. We do not hear a word about it now or if any steps have been taken in that direction. I understand that some new process is being tried in London which might make the project of the factory in the Gaeltacht antiquated. We should be told all about that— whether it is being held up to await the results of current experimentation or whether it is intended to go ahead with the factory, what will be done with the kelp, or how those people will be assisted to dispose of it.

I do not know whether it would be in order on this Estimate to refer to afforestation. When discussing the Vote for afforestation we were told that certain lands are not suitable for afforestation. There is one place at Ballinahinch where a Mr. [668] Berridge planted a lot of trees and got expert advice from the Department. That experiment has succeeded, and I do not see why other experiments of a similar nature in other districts should not be tried. Surely, there are suitable lands half way up mountains which might be used for afforestation. That would provide one method of employment, but we are not told a word about it now. We are told that poultry schemes are being formulated, but poultry schemes do not produce any eggs, at least until they are in operation. What we want to know is when they will be in operation. All that comes under the Department of Agriculture, as does, I presume, the assistance given for seed potatoes to the Arran Islands and other parts of Connemara during the spring season. We want to know before we pass this Vote, which we are opposing, what exactly has been done by the Department during the past twelve months to justify us in voting the sum now asked for. We are told that we are going to have a supplementary Estimate later on. I hope we do, and that these Bills regarding the co-operative sea-fishery associations, housing schemes, etc., will be as good as have been promised by the Minister. Until these Bills are passed and until we are asked to vote the money for them, I fail to see why we should vote any money for the Department.

Tomás O Deirg: Aontuím le n-a bhfuil ráite ag Proinnsias O Fathaigh, Teachta, i dtaobh an mheastacháin seo. Nuair a bhí ceist na Gaeltachta á plé anso bliain o shoin dubhradh linn go gcuirfí ar bun Coiste speisialta sa Roinn seo agus go mbeadh sé ar an gCoiste scéimeanna áirithe do thabhairt isteach—scéimeanna i dtaobh deontaisí le haghaidh tógailt tighthe an iasgaireacht d'fheabhsú agus déantúisí, do chur ar bun sa nGaeltacht. Gidh go bhfuil a lán ráite ag an Aire, ní fheicimíd go bhfuil aon toradh tagtha as an gCoiste sin Má tá aon nidh á dhéanamh ag an Roinn ba mhaith an rud fios cruinn d'fháil ar a bhfuil ar siúl acu.

[669] I move that the Estimate be referred back for re-consideration. I agree with Deputy Fahy that the treatment of the Gaeltacht by the Minister for Fisheries is deserving of the censure of the House. For that reason I have put down a motion that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. The whole question of the Gaeltacht was debated twelve months ago and on that occasion it was proposed by the Government to set up a Committee representative of the different State Departments who would act in coordination with the Minister for Lands and Fisheries and subject to his direction would formulate and carry into operation schemes to better the economic conditions of the people in the Gaeltacht. As far as I have been able to make out from the remarks of Ministers on that occasion they were in a pretty difficult situation, in managing to get members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party to vote for them. I think there were a great many members of the Party who thought that the Government was not doing sufficient and the different Ministers who spoke—I think practically all the Ministers on the front bench spoke on that occasion—were very careful not to compromise themselves while trying to give us the impression that their intentions were perfectly legitimate as regards the Gaeltacht.

They laid down a few principles indicating Government policy in regard to matters covered by the White Paper. They are principles affecting finance, and, in my opinion, the whole question in regard to dealing with the Gaeltacht is how much money you are going to spend? If we are going to have an Estimate coming up year after year, a few thousand pounds greater one year, or less the next year, we can take it that there is going to be no improvement in the unsatisfactory condition of the fisheries and of the people in the Gaeltacht. On the occasion when a motion in regard to the Gaeltacht was proposed by Deputy Fahy last year, the President and some of the other members of the Executive [670] Council led us to believe that these schemes were in hand and that they were going to spend money in the application of them. On the 19th March, the President, according to page 2090 of the Official Debates, said:—

“The Gaeltacht does, and will require the expenditure of considerable sums of money to make it a place in which people can live.”

The Minister for Finance said, on the 2nd May, according to page 761 of the Official Reports:—

“It seems to me that in order to maintain the population where it is for the sake of the language and to improve conditions as much as they can be improved, it is worth while conducting a number of industries under the auspices of a Government Department or somebody subsidised by a Government Department, knowing there would be some loss, but knowing that the people would in the main be definitely earning what they were paid.”

In addition to that he said (column 764 of the Official Debates):—

“If a well-thought-out scheme were propounded it might be better to face a period of five, six or seven years during which considerable expenditure would be made to determine whether, with large expenditure, there would be considerable development in the fisheries.”

I submit to the House that there is no evidence whatever in the Estimates of this considerable expenditure on these various schemes. Members of the House will no doubt say, and the Minister can say in reply, that it is necessary to have schemes in apple-pie order before bringing them before the Dáil. That is so, but there is no justification whatever for the delay that has taken place up to the present. The Minister speaks now of reorganising the fishing industry. Last year he had provision in his Estimates for the reorganisation of that industry, a particular subsidy [671] to the Fishermen's Association. The Fishermen's Association has probably fallen through owing to bad times. I think it exhibits negligence on the part of the Minister to allow the association to fall through, without endeavouring to take advantage of whatever ground-work in the way of organisation that association could provide. If the Ministry have to start work on that again they will have to organise, and when a Government Department is organising it has to pay very expensively for its organisation. It will have to organise from the very foundation, because in some of the areas where it is proposed to set up schemes or industries the organisation is practically nonexistent. All that will have to be done, and it is a great pity that the organisation which was there, however imperfect it might have been, was not taken advantage of.

The proposals for the re-establishment of the fishing industry on the basis of what is taking place in the fishing industry at present are nothing new. There were proposals made by the old Dáil in 1920 or 1919. It is an extraordinary thing, to my mind, that the Minister should take practically the same steps to implement the legislation as the old régime had in contemplation for the inland fisheries, that type of restrictive legislation which, however we may feel it is necessary, we dislike because we feel somehow that it is much better to get the co-operation of the people for the protection of the industry than to pass punitive legislation in regard to it.

It is an extraordinary thing that these proposals which the old Boards of Conservators had in mind for the protection of the inland fisheries were immediately rushed through this House in the form of legislation. I have no great fault to find with that. As far as they went they were admirable. What I do say is that, because certain vested interests in the country were interested in that particular matter, it [672] was not right that legislation should have been passed for their benefit mainly, and that some steps were not taken before now to put into operation the reorganisation scheme for the fishing industry which was laid down many years ago, and which the Minister himself knows all about. If it is that the Minister for Fisheries has snatched sufficient courage, by virtue of the fact that the Minister for Agriculture has plunged the State into a large financial transaction to put the dairying industry on its feet, to approach the Minister for Finance, who seems to be the villain of the piece in these matters, I rather congratulate him. Why he should not have done so earlier I do not know. In any case, I want to point out that there is nothing new about the proposals. They were all there years ago. These proposals were to organise the fishermen in co-operative societies, to have a central board in Dublin similar to the central marketing board in connection with the dairying industry, and that the board should regulate fisheries and market fish. Furthermore, that that board—and this is the important lacuna which we discern in the Minister's speech—would be provided with sufficient finance to re-organise the industry. The money that we are providing this year, even if it were all spent on re-organising these fishermen's societies, would probably not complete the work. I do not want the Minister to be placed in the position, when he is defending his project for the betterment of the fishing industry, that he will be told: “You came before the Dáil and asked for a certain amount of money; you asked for approval of certain proposals, and if these proposals were not the right ones, or if you had not sufficient money at your disposal, you have no right to come back here now and look for more money.” I want to see the Minister doing what he said himself on one occasion during the discussion on his Estimate would be necessary to rebuild the Irish fishing industry—I want to see him getting a quarter of a million pounds or more, as was done in the case of the creamery [673] industry, and developing the industry on that foundation.

What has the Minister done? He has taken the question of the fishery loans, and I am surprised that he contemplates the revival of the fishing industry on the basis of giving loans on substantially the same basis in future as he gave them in the past without doing away with the old loans. This matter has been pressed and will be pressed this evening, and I do not want to delay the House further in speaking about it. If the Department of Finance have been got to the position that they agree that each particular defaulting fisherman should have his case examined and should have a composition made or should have the debt wiped off altogether—because that would be necessary in some cases—why is it not possible to get the Minister for Finance to agree to a composition covering all the cases and getting this whole question of the revaluation of the old fishing loans out of our way? It has been here long enough. Another matter in connection with the re-organisation of the industry is the proposal that fishermen, if their claims are considered good, and they have been honest and trustworthy in the past, will not have to advance a portion of the purchase price. Although, as I take it from the Minister, they may not have been very satisfactory in the past, they still can get State facilities to a certain extent, but they will have to advance twenty per cent. of the purchase money in that case.

Mr. Lynch: I think that the Deputy misunderstood me. I did not say that. What I said is that owing to the present position of the fishing industry, apart from men's records in the past, fishermen may be advanced loans now without paying down any sum in cash themselves in advance. We shall not differentiate as between the person who had paid well in the past or the person who had not paid well—that is, for the first ten years the matter of paying in advance will be waived.

[674] Mr. Derrig: In all cases?

Mr. Lynch: Yes. Naturally the Association may find some persons to whom they would not give loans in any circumstances.

Mr. Derrig: I do not object to that. The only thing is, that it would seem to be a pity if the twenty per cent. were insisted upon, because the whole trouble with the fisherman is that when you give him certain facilities, if you are not acquainted with the situation, you may say: “The State has done a certain amount; why should not the fisherman do the remainder?” The Minister, while this question of the revaluation of the loans was hanging fire, told us in the House that, although he had not the question settled, he was prepared to grant loans up to £150, I think, for nets on the strength of his belief in the fishermen, who during past transactions had been satisfactory. But the position is that the granting to a fisherman of a boat or a net in addition is not sufficient. You are giving him certain things, and you are completely avoiding or neglecting the fact that he may have no financial resources to complete the rest of the work and to get his boat into running order. The Department of Fisheries are prepared to say that a certain amount of the realised price of the fishing catch will be set aside for paying off the cost price of the vessel and also for maintenance, but the whole trouble is to put the whole finance of the fishing industry on a proper footing in the beginning. As there are no provisions whatever in the Estimate for that, no matter what the present intentions of the Department of Fisheries may be, I have moved the motion to refer back.

I should also like to say, in connection with the development of the scheme, that it would be very valuable if the Minister kept in touch with the fishermen. It would be an unforgiveable thing if the Minister were dictated to in his own ideas of what were the best things to be done for the industry by particular local [675] circumstances, but unfortunately each particular area, and even each particular case, has its local difficulties, and these must be taken into consideration. When this scheme is founded I want to see it as far as possible developed with the active co-operation of the fishermen themselves. I do not want to see the position that arose in connection with the creamery re-organisation scheme, when you had a large number of farmers in certain areas rather disgruntled because a body in Dublin whom they knew nothing about had arbitrarily decreed that a creamery should be closed here and that they should have to go to another district to deliver their milk. Therefore, I suggest that the fullest possible co-operation and discussion should take place with the fishermen.

With regard to the question of the organisation of industries in the Gaeltacht, that is a case where the maxim of the Minister for Finance must be kept in mind—that all you can do in these cases is to see that the money is spent to the best advantage; that you cannot always expect a profit. I feel that the Minister is on the right lines in trying to get suitable designs to cope with changing fashions. In that connection it is a pity that those people who regard themselves as the leaders of society of the Free State would not now and again go out of their way to boost the products of native industry. Nothing, unfortunately, is further from their minds.

Whether you can have a central depot in Dublin to regulate what takes place in the industry in Donegal or in the West I do not know, but I feel that, on the whole, the Minister would be on the right line. The proper line, to my mind, is to make the production end as useful and right as possible. If we produce the right type of article as economically as possible and leave a certain amount of money to be spent in these districts for the benefit of the people we will be able to get good value and we will be able to tackle the marketing problem [676] afterwards. What we would like to see, in the first instance, is to get as much production as possible. When we build up this central depot, or other organisation in Dublin, unhappily a large amount of the money will go in overhead expenses, and what we must try is to see that the largest amount possible is spent in the Gaeltacht in production.

The Minister for Agriculture, in his statement last year in reference to the Gaeltacht, referred to the development of the poultry industry and of sheep and pigs and cattle. I suppose the Department of Agriculture are doing a certain amount for cattle, but the fact is that they have not, up to the present, produced a poultry scheme, just as the Local Government Department has not produced their new housing scheme for increasing the grants. It is a pity we have not some further details from the Minister as to what actually he is doing in these matters. The kelp experiment, which a year or two ago was spoken of as a potential factory, is now only an experiment. Are we to gather, therefore, from the Minister's statement that the prospects of building up the kelp industry are not favourable, and that the thing is going to fall through. It seems extraordinary, after such a long time, that the Minister has not been able to get kelp out of the experimental stage.

There are a few other matters that I wish to refer to. For instance, there is the question of the territorial waters which has been under discussion. Looking over old debates on the Estimate for Fisheries, I notice that one of the promises made a long time ago was that legislation would be introduced by the Minister to give increased powers to his Department to deal with foreign trawlers and to inflict more severe penalties for transgression of the Fishery Laws. At the same time the Minister said he had no powers in extra-territorial waters. Now if the situation that Deputy White raised the other night exists, I think the Government [677] ought to take an opportunity to clarify the whole question of the jurisdiction of this State in its territorial waters, and outside, where the rights of their own subjects are concerned.

The British Labour Government have now recognised the Soviet and our conservative Minister for Fisheries could do worse than to get his Government to recognise it. The Russian and Baltic markets, I believe, are the principal foreign markets that we have to look after. I should like to know from the Minister when he replies what our trade representative in the United States of America is doing for the herring and mackerel fisheries and what the Government proposes to do to develop the Irish foreign trade in the Baltic and these other countries.

The big question that we are at variance with the Minister upon, as the House may have gathered from my remarks, is the fact that he thinks private enterprise can be got to build up the Irish fishing industry as it stands at present. I admit if you had fishermen organised and a general feeling of optimism among them, if they were in the position that they were able to hang on and to make a living at least without making any great profits, if they had some security of employment, it might be all right to wait until some foreign syndicate came along to develop the industry and to put capital into it. But to my mind the whole attitude of the Minister has been inconsistent in the matter of encouraging private enterprise.

On one occasion the Minister says: “I am not going to spend any money in the development of the deep-sea fishery because I know from what happened in Australia and other places that it is going to be a failure, and if I did it would have disastrous effects and prevent foreigners (or natives) investing money in the industry.” And at the same time he turns round and goes a certain length as he does now by giving loans without any advance on the purchase money and as he has done by encouraging experiments which I think he did in Donegal recently in [678] deep sea trawling. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He ought to wash his hands out of the fishery industry altogether or go into it with sufficient strength and determination to say: “I am going to make a success of it and therefore I can hand it over later on to whatever capitalists or combines will buy it.” His present attitude is: “I am going to spend a certain amount of money, not sufficient to develop the industry, but sufficient to enable every person, who has not the interests of the industry at heart, to say it is a failure and that the fishermen are responsible.” I think the Minister is doing an entirely wrong thing and is not doing justice to the fisheries by taking up that attitude. He ought not to put his hand to a certain scheme as in the case of the Donegal scheme and then drop out in order that he may show it is not a success when he encounters obstacles.

Certainly in an industry which fluctuates so violently it would be hard to say to the Minister: “You must go on spending money in scores of thousands of pounds every year even though you know you must lose.” But I am afraid the House will have to take that responsibility; if they are to put the industry upon a proper footing they will have to spend money. Thank God there is a Government and a Parliament which is, I trust, prepared to spend that money. The only thing necessary is to spend it in the proper way and to get the maximum result.

In conclusion, I wish to refer to the question of the inland fisheries. The question of the inland fisheries is an extremely difficult and complicated matter, and it is unfortunate that we have no definite information from the present Government, that they have not investigated this question and put the result of their investigations on a White Paper. There is no form in which that information is available. The Government have passed a number of Bills on the whole question, but in the matter of legal rights in connection with these fisheries, the question of whether the fishing rights are vested in the tenants, [679] and what fishing rights are not vested in them, and how exactly the entire inland fisheries of the State stand in regard to their value and as to who exactly owns them, and what are the present powers of the State in regard to them—we are in a state of deplorable ignorance upon a lot of these questions. This is a matter in which we are all interested. We see Boards of Conservators which, according to their tradition, are looking after the fisheries very well. They are subsidised by the State this year to the extent of £3,750, which is going to the development of the inland fisheries direct, but to the sea fisheries we are only giving the sum of £5,000 in loans to the fishermen.

The total amount that is being spent on the development of inland fisheries compares very favourably with the amount you are going to give directly in loans to the sea fisheries. You are therefore subsidising these Boards of Conservators. I would like the Minister to state what exactly is his position in regard to these boards. There is in the first place the claim that owing to the operation of the purchase of innumerable licences by the people who are on these boards already they succeed in keeping fresh blood out. Whether the type that is trying to get in on the board is the best type or not I do not know. We want to see other sections of the community coming in and taking a hand in the control of these fisheries. You have also the farmers who should be the owners of fishing rights attached to their own land interested in this question. A most extraordinary state of affairs, which I hope Deputy Allen will go into, has occurred on the River Slaney, where, I think, farmers have been prevented from fishing on their own lands while other people have been allowed to do so. In certain areas you have a certain type of fishing where a net is put out and the owner of the fishing who controls the right over a single pool can gather in 60 or 100 salmon in one day. You have certain [680] people having rights in the tidal waters where one would imagine the Almighty never intended anybody to have rights. It is time that the Government would look into these matters and see whether the different people who are trying to live on the fisheries, the people who have a claim like the farmers, and the inland fishermen, who were computed before the war to amount to 8,000, are getting as good a show as they expected to get under a native Government.

The Minister stated, in reply to Deputy White, that he wants to see this question of the Bann fisheries brought into court. What is going to be the result of that court action? Can the Minister have any doubt whatever in his mind? The charters are there. The titles can be proved, going back to King Charles, King John, or somebody else. If the Minister is satisfied that these charters should be abrogated and that there are sections of the community who, from time immemorial, have lived on these fisheries I think he should take steps to protect their rights and give them a chance to earn their livelihood. Some of the landlords who have those several fisheries do not take steps to preserve them. I am told that in parts of my constituency some of these fisheries are comparatively neglected. Nevertheless, they are there, a barrier to the angler's enjoyment of his sport, and also to the local farmer getting his rights.

In connection with angling, as in the case of what I said about the Boards of Conservators, it is a pity that the Minister could not reduce the licence fee. If there has been an enormous increase in the number of persons holding licences it may appear to him that the number of anglers is increasing sufficiently. It is the very best thing, I think, for the country if you can have the proper type of angler—a very large number of people interested in sport solely from the point of view of sport, and who, however these questions of title deeds and private interest go, will always look at things from a fairly detached point [681] of view, from the point of view of how, in the long run, these fisheries can best be developed in the country. I would like the Minister to increase the number of anglers by reducing the licence fees. I would like to see anglers increasing in out-of-the-way places. I would like the Minister to take steps to extend the use of hatcheries, and stock mountain lakes, which are at present unprofitable, with fish.

Another matter I wish to refer to, in conclusion, is the earlier opening of the season. The Minister will say, no doubt, that he is anxious to protect the fisheries and that any change in the present conditions of the closed season and the closing at the week-end would interfere with fishing. Everyone admits that our fisheries have increased enormously in value during the past few years, and a good many people think if the system of hatcheries were developed on a large scale that the Irish rivers would be teeming with fish. The fishermen say that after April the fisheries are very unprofitable. It may happen that they are unprofitable for the whole year. They are very unsatisfactory this year. The fishermen say that when the evenings become bright they do not do very much. Anglers tell me that the early spring season is the best for getting the fish. I think that if it would confer an enormous benefit on the fishermen, who are the poorest class and are living on the industry, the Minister might reconsider the question of re-opening a week or a fortnight earlier, at the beginning of January. He can close them earlier if he wishes, but at the beginning of the season the fishermen are anxious to get as many facilities as possible consistent with the protection of the fisheries. If the Minister during the coming twelve months takes steps to attend to these various matters, the rights of the farmers and the claims of the anglers and the interests of the inland fishermen, he will get their support. He will not be depending on the Civic Guards and the boards of conservators. All classes down [682] the country will have confidence that the Minister is anxious to give everybody a share and have everyone represented on the boards and anxious that everyone should get, within reason, a return from the fisheries. I hope all these matters which, I am sorry to have detained the House so long on, will be attended to.

Mr. White: Poaching trawlers have never done more destruction than they have done in the past twelve months along the Donegal coastline, where very rarely have there been any visits from the cruiser. It has been stated on fairly reasonable authority, on several occasions, that the speed of the cruiser is not at all satisfactory as compared with the more modern trawlers. I referred to this matter last year, and the Minister stated in reply to my allegation that it was not right or proper that he should let the House or the public know what the speed of the cruiser was. This cruiser is costing about £10,000 to maintain and keep in Saorstát waters. If the cruiser is not equal to the speed of the modern trawler then the question should be seriously considered by the Ministry of placing another cruiser on duty to whose speed no exception could be taken.

Fines have been struck at various district courts around County Donegal for the past four or five years against masters of trawlers caught in prohibited waters. I would like to hear from the Minister if he has got any nearer the collection of these fines than this time last year. I understand that a huge list of these unrecovered fines is in his Department, and it is very desirable that we should know what steps have been taken by whatever Department is responsible, for the recovery of these fines.

I agree with a good deal of what has been said from the Fianna Fáil Benches with regard to the development of industries in the Gaeltacht. Unfortunately, in our Gaeltacht, in Donegal, there is a big reserve of unemployed female labour, and [683] unless cottage industries are developed to give employment to these women and girls there is nothing for them but emigration. I am prepared to wait until the autumn session to hear the proposals with regard to the development of the cottage industries, by the new chief of the Department, Mr. Bradley. I understand that he went into the Department of Lands and Fisheries with a high record. It will be up to him to sustain that record in Donegal and in other areas of the Gaeltacht.

With regard to the question of developing cottage industries, I remember reading about the Countess of Aberdeen giving a garden party in the Viceregal Lodge some thirty or thirty-five years ago. She made it a condition that all her guests would attend that garden party wearing Irish manufactured products. I think that if something in the same direction were done by the Governor-General and some of the higher officials who hold functions of that description— if in sending out invitations they made it a condition that Irish made goods would be worn—it would give a fillip to the Gaeltacht industries and to Irish industry all round.

As regards Deputy Derrig's reference to the discussion that took place here last Friday on the adjournment, on the rights of the Inishowen fishermen to use the Lough Foyle Fisheries, there is, of course, the claim of the Foyle and Bann Company as lessees of the Irish Society. I think, in the interests of the Inishowen fishermen and of the whole of the Saorstát, this question should be taken up seriously by the Minister and his Department. They should get into communication with the Northern Government and have determined at once what the rights of our Inishowen fishermen are in Lough Foyle. If the Minister does that he will be doing a real service to the unfortunate people who are endeavouring to make a living from this fishery.

[684] Mr. Kent: I wish to bring under the notice of the Minister a very serious matter as regards the fishing around the south coast, particularly with reference to the fishing at Youghal, Knockadoon, Ballycotton and Cobh. The fishermen down there for the last few years have been complaining of the neglect of the Department in regard to foreign trawlers. These trawlers are coming in week after week and day after day under the noses of the fishermen and taking away the fish on which those men are depending for a livelihood. I remember a time when that coast abounded with herrings and hake and gave a plentiful supply of fish to the inland towns and rural districts. At the present time there is not a sprat to be got. All the fish are taken away by these foreign trawlers. There is a huge amount of money spent on this Department—£42,897—and as far as I can see it is mostly spent on officials, while nothing is being done for the unfortunate people who are depending on the fishing for their livelihood. I hope that when the Minister goes on his holidays he will bring down officials from his Department for a couple of months and get first hand information. At the same time they will spend a most enjoyable holiday. Let him visit Ballycotton before he goes to any other part and spend his money at home.

Mr. Clery: What about Deputy Sheehy's end of it?

Mr. Kent: I think Deputy Sheehy will account for himself. I must say as regards these hatcheries that they have done an amount of good. The stocking of the rivers with trout and salmon fry is most important, and I hope they will spend more money in that way. It will be an inducement to tourists, and when they come here they will enjoy the fishing and spend money in the country, which is badly needed at the present time. As regards salmon fishery rights. I would like to see them vested in the owners of land adjoining the rivers. In the Black-water [685] valley at the present time the tenants are agitating for the fishing rights, and if these rights are not vested in them I am afraid it will lead to a lot of trouble later. I hope the Department will take particular notice of that. At the present time it takes all we can do, in the way of advice, to keep these people within the bounds of the law. It would be very easy to turn away these people who come from England and Scotland and who have plenty of money to spend in the country. If the fishing rights were vested in those people owning the land adjoining the rivers there would be no need for half the water-bailiffs we have at present because every one of these farmers would be a protection in himself. He would look after his own interests and fish would be more plentiful and would become a great boon to the people of the country.

I hope the Minister for Fisheries will see that the fishing rights around the coast of Ballycotton will be protected; that he will keep these trawlers away and give the unfortunate people down there a chance of earning a living for themselves and their children and of keeping them from the emigrant ship.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare): I think the main reason why this Vote should be referred back is because sufficient money is not being voted for the revival of the Irish fishing industry. This Department, it would seem, continues to be the Cinderella of Government Departments.

Whilst perhaps there is a greater field for development here than in many other Irish industries, yet the Government seems to be withholding sufficient money to allow the Department to develop upon any reasonable or fruitful line this vast industry. It is so seldom that the President gives any good advice that I will take it on this occasion and I will be as brief and as much to the point as possible. The Minister's speech to-day seemed to be loaded with promises. He promised us many things, and I hope that the [686] realisation of these promises will come in due time. I hope we will get some good fruit from them. But if we examine the results and activities of one Committee that has been at work for some time we perhaps may gauge the activities of the other Committees from that. For close on twelve months there has been a Committee called the Gaeltacht Reconstruction Committee in being. The name I have given it may not be its correct name, but it contains the idea, and Deputies will know the Committee that I refer to. This is a Committee which was to suggest what should be done in the Gaeltacht by way of helping fisheries and local industries, to preserve the Irish language for the Irish nation in the Gaeltacht. Many schemes have been submitted to that Committee. Many considerations have been submitted to it that would do some good towards preserving the Irish language. But I have not yet heard any Deputy say that as a result of the activities of that Committee any scheme has been put into operation or that any good work has been done in the Gaeltacht. Many may not agree with my view of the Gaeltacht. We may, of course, force Irish upon lawyers; we may say that that will save the Irish language. We may say it is in the schools and that that will save it. But I would scrap Irish in the schools, I would scrap Irish in the Galltacht, I would scrap Irish for lawyers, I would scrap Irish in the Constitution and I would scrap the Constitution itself if I could be certain that there would be one hundred or two hundred Irish-speaking families secure in the Gaeltacht. If that Committee has not been working towards that end that Committee has been failing in the main matter for which it has been set up, that is, to secure that industry in the Gaeltacht will provide sustenance for the people in the Gaeltacht who have the heritage of Irish nationality in its purest form.

There is a small Gaeltacht in my [687] own county. I regret to say that it has been driven towards the coast —probably one mile inland, in some places to a half mile inland, and in some districts it has probably disappeared altogether. Yet when I submitted a scheme that would cost probably £50 and that would secure that about 1,000 tons of seaweed could be saved and collected for kelp for the people of a small town, the season is allowed to pass and that money is not expended for the purpose of cutting a way through a reef of rock. I am not making this point against the Minister. This proposal was submitted long before the opening of the season, and yet the season was allowed to pass without that trifling expenditure. It was only a trifle of perhaps not more than £50, but the non-expenditure of that £50 has destroyed to a great extent the faith of the people of that district in the activities of the Department of Fisheries.

It is no pleasure to me to make these remarks here, but I want to point out to the Minister that the non-expenditure of that £50 has destroyed the faith of the people who are active in the work of the Gaeltacht in the Department of Fisheries. We are promised a co-operative association which will look after boats and tackle and such things. I would like to know more about that co-operation and that association. I would like to know how it is going to be formed, what is going to be its constitution and government? I hope the Minister in his reply will let us have some more information about it. I gather from the Minister's remarks that re-valuation is more or less shelved, and that we are to have another committee to consider the position in detail. It is also true that the Minister told us that some schemes have been in operation in the Gaeltacht. But the acid test, to my mind, of the efficacy of the schemes is this: has emigration from the Gaeltacht dwindled during the last five years, two years, or one year? Has emigration from the Gaeltacht diminished? Is it still [688] not going on as it was before these schemes were put into operation? What has been done in the past twelve months to reduce that emigration? That is what I would like to hear. I would like to hear how this scheme which the Minister has introduced is going to keep the people at home.

There is a minor matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the question of inquiries. In some districts inquiries are being made as regards by-laws. Some of these by-laws are very vexatious. I will give the Minister an idea of how absurd these by-laws are. In the estuary of the Shannon, boats are expected when fishing to keep a certain distance apart, when they are mere playthings of the tide. They are prosecuted if they are not a certain distance apart. The fishery inspectors of the Minister's Department, or whoever is responsible, issue prosecutions in these cases. These things are very vexatious, and representations have been made to me that the Minister should have these things considered, and considered not in the off-hand fashion in which most of these inquiries have been held.

I have been told that inquiries in the main are more or less farcical and that there is really no active inquiry into the grievances submitted by the fishermen or by the people concerned, that an inspector blows into the place and blows out of it again and that is all that is ever heard of it. These are statements that have been made to me. I am not endeavouring to score points off the Ministry. If my statements are incorrect the Minister will have an opportunity of flatly contradicting them. I am of the opinion that the Minister's Department is not sufficiently in touch with the activities and aspirations of the people in these districts. If it were, probably more would have been done. I am anxious to hear something about the iodine factory. Probably the Minister will give us some information in his reply. It would be desirable if we could be assured in a more detailed fashion of how boats and gear will be got under the new system proposed by the Minister.

[689] Mr. Shaw: On this Vote in previous years I referred to the importance of inland fisheries. I also referred to the good work that can be done by local organisations in connection with the development and protection of inland fisheries, working in co-operation with the Minister's Department. Deputy Derrig referred to the subsidy given for inland fisheries and he said that he considered there was too much given in that connection. My complaint is in the very opposite direction. I have stated repeatedly here that I believe we have a great national asset, a regular gold mine in the country, if inland fisheries were more fully developed. I have gone into the matter at length on previous occasions and I do not intend to-day to deal any further with it. We can attract tourists here who have money to spend. By encouraging tourists we can bring very much-needed money into the country.

I pointed out before the good work that local organisations can do in protecting the fish which come up the rivers in thousands to spawn. I referred especially to trout, as the salmon in County Westmeath are only in the rivers. The trout come up the rivers in thousands. Heretofore they were packed in barrels and salted, but now they can return to the lakes. In that matter we got very considerable help from the Civic Guards. I would like to pay a tribute to them for the excellent work they did. No bailiffs or other people who look after the various rivers up which the trout go in such enormous numbers could have attended to the matter so well as the Guards. People who have not seen it will scarcely believe the huge numbers of fish that pass up the rivers every year. If anybody would like to get complete proof of what I say, let him visit the lakes and rivers in the latter end of February and the beginning of March in any year and he will see the fish there in thousands. In addition to that, the Society hatch every year some 100,000 young trout at practically a nominal cost. When the ova are hatched out and developed, the young trout are turned into the [690] lakes. Beyond doubt at the present time the lakes are teeming with trout.

I notice a letter in to-day's “Irish Times” from the Honorary Secretary of the Lough Owel and Lough Ennel Preservation Association. In that letter he states: “I am glad to notice that the Boyne Fishery Conservators have adopted a resolution from the Wexford Board of Conservators asking the Minister for Fisheries to bring in legislation to prevent the illegal netting of salmon and trout...” I may say that in that connection I am in complete agreement with the writer. Every possible protection should be afforded to trout. In another portion of the letter he states that the only effective way to protect a large lake like Lough Ennel is to abolish the right to net coarse fish. With that statement I am in entire disagreement, because if pike and perch and other fish that feed on trout are not taken out of the lakes then, of course, they will be free to consume large numbers of trout. I will give proof of that statement. The coarse fish must be destroyed in order to protect the trout. I saw very recently a 12 lb. pike taken out of Belvidere, and he had a half-digested 4 lb. trout in his inside. Thousands of those pike have been netted or shot in that particular lake. I understand that in other lakes they have been allowed to accumulate, with the result that there is hardly any fishing.

There is an important reason why I object to the complete stoppage of netting. It is that a large number of poor fishermen living around the lakes usually go out and net perch or pike. In addition to removing the danger of those fish consuming trout the men also provide food for themselves and their families. I sincerely hope the Minister will not pay any attention to the suggestion about abolishing the right of netting coarse fish. I said that I would give some proof in connection with the damage done by coarse fish. In Lough Owel, one of the lakes in Westmeath, seven miles long by three miles wide, there are not two dozen trout caught in the year. The [691] reason is that there is no endeavour made to take out the coarse fish, such as pike or perch. They are allowed to accumulate, being neither netted nor shot, and the result is that there is hardly any fishing on that lake.

I would like to mention a matter which has caused a good deal of unpleasantness. I refer to a by-law passed on 7th August, 1928, altering the mesh to be used from two to two and a quarter inches. That renders the use of any mesh two inches or less altogether illegal. This by-law was never published locally. I do not find fault with the Minister, as the responsible organisation should have let fishermen know that the two-inch mesh was no longer legal. Very great unpleasantness could have been saved if this by-law were made known. Unless you have the sympathy and co-operation of the fishermen the local organisations will not be able to carry on the good work which they can do.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that in Westmeath we have some of the most beautiful lakes in the country. Any person desirous of having a nice holiday should visit Derravaragh, Lough Owel or Lough Ennel. There is no licence needed to fish there. There is absolutely free fishing and, apart from the superb scenery, there are many other attractions. I give a cordial invitation to any person who has money to spend, and who wants to get good value for it, to visit County Westmeath.

Mícheál O Cléirigh: Má tá aon fhírinne san méid atá na Teachtaí tar éis a rá, cuirfear ar geúl an meastachán so. Chualamar an t-Aire ag labhairt ar feadh i bhfad anuiridh. Thug sé a lán geallta faoi na rudaí a bhí roimhe do dhéanamh agus an obair mhór a bhí idir lámhaibh aige an t-am san. Anois, tá an bhliain caithte agus an obair a bhí geallta aige níl sé déanta. Tá na hiascairí agus muinntear na Gaeltachta níos measa—agus i bhfad níos measa—ná a bhí siad an t-am so anuiridh. Ar aon chuma, níl siad níos fearr agus deirim nách [692] ndearna an t-Aire aon iarracht chun feabhas do chur orra. Ba chuma liom dá mbeadh déanta ag an tAire fiú agus iarracht amháin chun na h-iascairí do chur ar a geosaibh— dá ndéanfadh sé iarracht agus dá dteipeadh air. Ach ní dhéarn sé fiú agus iarracht féin. An t-aon rud amháin a rinne an tAire i rith na bliana b'é a thuarastal féin do tharraingt agus geallta do thabhairt, anois agus arís, núair a bhí togha ar siúl ar fuid na tíre.

I would like if Deputies, instead of following the Minister in what he has stated here in connection with this promised “new Bill,” would discuss what is before us on this Estimate. When I came into the chamber the Minister had started speaking, and when I heard him I thought we had gone away from the procedure laid down this morning and that we were discussing a Bill introduced by the Minister for Fisheries to build up the fishing industry. But when I found out what had happened, I came to the conclusion that the Minister was not the dud I took him to be. I came to the conclusion that he was indeed a very ikey individual. It is wise on the part of the Minister to get away from the Estimate, to get away from what he has not done for the past year, to get away from the promises he made here every year, and to discuss instead a Bill that is supposed to be brought in next autumn and to discuss what this Bill may do for the fishing industry. I would like to remind the Deputies of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party that over a year ago, when the Minister's Estimates were before us, the Minister made a certain number of promises. He was very emphatic as regards what he was going to do during the past year.

The Minister, speaking last year on this Vote on the 9th May, 1928, dealing with the falling off in trade carried on by lace schools and other industrial centres in the Gaeltacht, due chiefly to the English tax on artificial silk, said:

Because of that particular tax and because of other reasons which have tended towards reducing [693] the efficacy of these industries, we must concentrate on developing, as far as possible, the home market for the products of those industrial schools, and steps are being taken, as I mentioned in the Gaeltacht debate, to organise a central depot in Dublin, and when that is developed it will be necessary, probably towards the end of the year, to come to the Dáil for a Supplementary Estimate under that head.

That was a definite statement by the Minister that before the end of last year he would come before the Dáil for a supplementary Estimate to enable him to do what he has been talking of doing for seven years and what was intended to be done, at least, ten years before that, namely, to have in Dublin a central depôt to assist the industries of the Gaeltacht. A year has passed, but as soon as Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies agreed to pass that Estimate of 1928 on the understanding that a central depôt was to be set up in Dublin, the Minister went back to his slumber room in his Department and was not again heard of until the Sligo-Leitrim election, when he made other promises about the fishing industry. Nothing has been heard of the Supplementary Vote which he was to introduce in 1928. Further on in his speech during last year's debate he talked about the homespun industry and said, in regard to certain proposals that had been put forward:

These proposals include the setting up of a carding and dyeing factory in Donegal, and a scheme of State inspection and the stamping of genuine hand-woven homespun cloth. These have been under the consideration of the Department of Finance for some time, and when they receive the sanction of the Minister for Finance, as I presume they will, it will mean also coming forward for a Supplementary Vote for that particular scheme.

That is another of the meandering statements of the Minister for Fisheries in 1928. Not only was he coming forward with one Supplementary Vote, but he was coming forward [694] with a second one for a carding and dyeing factory. Where is that proposal now? Where is the carding factory? The Minister did not tell us about these things in his statement to-day, nor have we heard of them since the Estimate was passed last year. On the same occasion last year he boasted, in his plausible manner, because he wanted to get on holidays, about the great measure with which the Government was preparing to deal with housing in the Gaeltacht, and he said that they had accepted the recommendations contained in Article 55 of the Commission's report, in which it is stated: “That a special system of loans and grants be introduced for housing in the Gaeltacht.” Where is that system since the Minister promised it? What have they done since? Houses have been built, but not for the Irish-speaking families he talks of, not for the Irish speakers whom they pretend they want to help to live in the Gaeltacht. During the same debate he promised a Bill for the compulsory branding of mackerel before the Recess last year. What has become of that? As I say, after his mid-night dream last year about all the grand things he was going to do he went back to his slumber room and forgot about them. He was not serious making these promises then, and how can we take his promises as serious to-day, promises that have raised the hopes of the poorest section in the Gaeltacht, whose hopes are always raised only to be shattered by the Minister. They raised their hopes by setting up the Gaeltacht Commission. They got a hard-working body of Gaels to go round getting information about the Gaeltacht and the fishing industry there, and what have they done since with the findings they were supposed to accept?

As regards the re-valuation of boats, the Minister said last year, when winding up the debate, that a Bill for that purpose was with the draftsman. So we had almost got it in 1928. Where is it? Does the Minister think that we are a pack of fools? Surely he will admit that even among Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies [695] there is some little intelligence. Surely they, especially those from the Gaeltacht, will not always stand for that policy of fooling. There was also another promise about a Supplementary Vote for a second fishery cruiser. He was speaking about foreign trawlers ruining the Irish fisheries. First he found fault with the Irish people living along the coast because they bought fish from the foreign trawlers. Does he want them to die of starvation and to refuse to take fish in exchange for fowl, eggs, or other commodities? The Minister said on that occasion:

“Our own people are really subsidising and encouraging the trawlers by buying the fish that they very often catch off our coast. They catch the fish off our coast, land it in England, and it is brought back and eaten here.”

Can the Minister supply them with something else instead of fish in Erris? After that statement the Minister raised our hopes and made us somewhat happy by saying that he was going to tackle the question of foreign trawlers. He said: “ I have considerable hopes that during the year we may be able to come here for a Vote for a second cruiser.” Everything was to be done last year and the Minister got his Estimate through on his promises. Deputy White said to-day: “I am content to wait until the autumn.” Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies got up last year and said: “We are content to wait for these Supplementary Votes.” I think that the Minister should not insult the House by sitting on the Front Bench. Perhaps it is not his fault being there. The President often talks about getting pound for pound in value. When we talk about unemployment and relief works the President says: “Where are you going to get pound for pound value?” Where can the President, or the Minister since he took up office, say that value has been given when no less than £137,597 has been spent in salaries and allowances, while for the fishing industry, in loans and so forth, only £97,362 has been spent? I cannot see where pound for pound value has been [696] given and where, therefore, is the economic policy of the President?

I admit that there is a certain amount given to industries, but putting them altogether, where is the value, pound for pound, out of the Minister's Department which the President said the Government want for every pound expended. The Department was being run to such great satisfaction, moryah!— to the satisfaction of the people who are really ruling this country, the shoneens of Dublin and the Chamber of Commerce, that the Land Commission was handed over to the Minister, and now the Minister says that he will not make any promise this year, but that he will bring in a Bill to deal with the whole question. The Minister may be in earnest about the Bill, but I am not prepared to take his word, knowing what I do about him already. I do not think any Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy could take his word either, knowing him as they do, and they know him as well as we do, according to the information I have got from some Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies. Surely, after five years, they owe even one act to their constituents. They should not always be satisfied to walk in behind the Minister who they know has not done his work in any branch of his Department. They are just as dissatisfied with that Department in regard to its neglect of fisheries, the Gaeltacht, the Land Commission, and the branch formerly administered by the old C.D. Board, as I am dissatisfied. Why do they not, before this Estimate is put through, make their protest against the manner in which the Department has been administered? It is not too much to ask people who represent the West of Ireland to do that. It is not a question of defeating the Government. It is making the Government wake up to the facts of the situation as every Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy should desire them to wake up. We are taking the only effective steps we can to do that by moving to refer back this Vote. Promises, of course, will be made again and again by the Minister, but I would like if, instead [697] of taking the new Bill which the Minister talks about, we took him on his record as it is and vote on that alone. We heard different suggestions made here by Deputies who spoke about the fishing industry in regard to the erection of piers and slips. I am not going to make any suggestions in that way at all because I believe the Minister knows the necessity for piers and slips along the coast of Mayo or along any other coast, as well as I do. I would ask the House not to make itself so cheap as to suggest anything to the Minister in that way, because he has made no attempt to meet any of the suggestions made previously or any of the recommendations made by the Gaeltacht Commission. Unless the Minister is driven to do it, he will do nothing in that way. Drive him to it and he will do it. He has been masquerading for the past seven years under the bewildering title of Minister for Lands and Fisheries. When I see the manner in which he introduced the Estimate I must say that I do not think he is the incompetent Minister that I thought him to be. He is a cheat. He has cheated the Irish people for the past seven years. He cheats the Cumann na nGaedheal Party by pretending that he is going to benefit the Gaeltacht out of his salary and the expenses of his Department. The fisheries are to-day much worse off than they were when he took office.

Mr. Cassidy: I think that we are all familiar with the truth of the saying that “ A soft answer turneth away wrath.” I believe the Minister must also believe in the truth of it, because in introducing the Estimate and in speaking in regard to the Estimate, as Deputy Clery has pointed out, he has made promises go leor. I think the net he has endeavoured to spread over Deputies who might be inclined to criticise his Department will not have the desired result, because, as Deputy Clery has said, this is not the first occasion, in speaking in regard to the Estimate, that he has made promises. He has told us what his Department [698] hopes to do during the ensuing twelve months, but it is not promises of what the Department hopes to do that the fishing folk and the people in the Gaeltacht want to hear. We would have preferred to hear what the Department has accomplished during the past year in regard to the development of fisheries and also in regard to putting into operation the recommendations contained in the White Paper accompanying the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission.

It is realised by Deputies of all Parties, I think, that the fisheries round our coast are not in a healthy condition. To my mind, the scheme for the proposed Fisheries Co-operative Society outlined by the Minister could be made a good scheme. I believe that organisation is necessary amongst fishermen in order to develop fisheries and that if the Minister's Department approach this proposal in the proper way it can be made a success. He has outlined a scheme for organising the fishermen in divisional areas, who would themselves appoint representatives on the Central Board. While that suggestion may be a good one, a lot will depend on the manner in which that proposal is put into operation. It would also be interesting to know whether the Minister or his Department is serious in regard to the proposal. Some time ago we were told that a sum of £1,100 would be granted to the Fishermen's Association for organising fishermen along the coast. I think an effort was made, but I understand that certain stipulations were put forward to the Fishermen's Association demanding that the Department of Fisheries should nominate the majority of the members on the committee of the organisation and stating also that it would be necessary for the Department to nominate organisers. If the Minister is going to put forward impossible stipulations in regard to the new scheme such as he previously put forward to the Fishermen's Association, I believe that the scheme he has outlined will not bear the fruit that I would hope to see it bear.

[699] Deputy Clery has reiterated a long litany of the promises made by the Minister in previous years. In fact I do not think one would be far out in terming the Minister a sort of breach of promise expert. It might be laughable in the sense that Deputies can smile at it but it is not so laughable if we remember the viewpoint of fishermen, both whole-time and spare-time, who are in a state of poverty at present. Reference was made to a statement by the Minister for Fisheries on the 9th May in connection with this Estimate last year in which he said: “I will be introducing a Bill for the compulsory branding of mackerel for export. That will possibly come on before the recess.” That was prior to the recess in 1928. Now we are on the verge of the recess of 1929, but no such Bill has yet come before the Dáil. Is it any wonder that one views with some suspicion the scheme proposed here to-day which has been outlined very briefly?

Again, a statement was made, as Deputy Clery pointed out, that a Bill was in the draftsman's hands in regard to the re-valuation of boats. That promise has not been carried out. That Bill has not come from the draftsman to the House up to the present although a whole year has elapsed. In the course of the statement the Minister made reference to the kelp industry and said that certain experiments were being carried out in regard to that industry. I would remind the Minister that, speaking on the Estimates in connection with the kelp industry last year, he stated:—

“ A certain proposition is before the Department of Finance with regard to the iodine factory. It is something that we need not throw our hats in the air about as something that is extraordinarily great. It will only provide for about twelve hundred tons of kelp in the year.”

Why the Department of Finance turned it down I am not in a position to say. It has not been carried out, although it was suggested by [700] the Department of Fisheries that it would be. We are now told that certain experiments have to be carried out in regard to the kelp industry. Are the people on the coast only to hope that the same results will come out of these experiments as came out of the scheme which the Minister mentioned last year in connection with an iodine factory?

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Mr. Cassidy: Reference has also been made to poaching by foreign trawlers within the three-mile limit and to the violation of the extra-territorial by-laws. As far back as six years ago, on the 18th January, 1923, the Minister for Fisheries at that time stated that he hoped in the new year to get an extra protection vessel. Later on, when the matter was raised on the adjournment, he mentioned that he hoped to get two additional protection vessels. Despite that, we have only one protection vessel at present, which is altogether inadequate to keep the foreign trawlers from poaching fish that should give our fishermen a livelihood. It is well known to Donegal Deputies that poaching is extensively carried on around that coast. No adequate steps are taken by the Department to cope with the foreign trawlers which come in at night with their identification numbers covered over. I suggest to the Minister that a cruiser or patrol boat should be sent to Donegal, which would have its base either in Lough Swilly or Killybegs, in order to cope with these marauders. Some time ago reference was made to the patrol boat “Muirchú,” and it was alleged that it had only a speed of ten knots. If that is true, it is useless to try to cope with these foreign trawlers. In that connection, I heard a story some time ago in regard to the “Muirchú.” Somewhere on the Donegal coast some years ago it sighted a foreign trawler and put on full steam in order to catch it. The trawler waited until the patrol vessel was within a very short distance of it, and then put up [701] speed. The story goes that the captain of the trawler put on a gramophone record of “The Girl I left Behind Me”—the girl in this case, unfortunately, being the Free State patrol boat.

Deputies White and Carney, no later than Friday last, referred to certain actions taken by the Foyle and Bann Fisheries Company against fishermen on Lough Foyle. I was very sorry to see the weak stand which the Minister took up in regard to asserting our rights and the rights of the fishermen in the matter. I suggest that the Minister should reconsider the decision he arrived at—if it can be called a decision—and that he should stand up for our rights as contained in the Constitution, and also for the rights of the fishermen. As I have said, the fishing industry around the coast is not in a healthy condition. At the same time, it seems very peculiar that in the year 1924 we imported into this country £307,000 worth of fish; in the year 1925, £293,000 worth, and in the year 1926, £292,000 worth. As regards the returns in respect to catches issued by the Fishery Department, it should be realised that the herrings which are landed around the coast are largely handled by English and Scotch fishermen. In fact, it is estimated that between 60 and 70 per cent. of the herrings landed on our coast are handled by non-Saorstát fishermen, so that the returns published are not accurate in that the moneys derived from these catches do not come exclusively to Saorstát fishermen.

Another matter to which I would like to direct attention is that the date for the opening of the herring season around Donegal is not controlled by the Department of Fisheries, but to a very large extent by the decisions arrived at by the owners of steam trawlers in Aberdeen and other places. No later than this year the fishing season in Buncrana was curtailed to a very large extent owing to the action of these particular people in not coming into Lough Foyle earlier than they did. While the Minister is not responsible for the actions of these people, [702] it shows that we are not actually in control of our fisheries as we should be, and that even yet they are being controlled by people in Aberdeen, Fleetwood, Great Yarmouth and other centres.

While I criticise the Department, at the same time I do not believe that it is being fairly treated by the Department of Finance. If we are to develop the fisheries around the coast in the way in which we would all like to see them developed, sufficient money is not being expended. As an indication of that, I would refer to the fact that in 1925-6 only £75,000 was voted here for the development of fisheries, whereas in the same year the Government of Denmark voted £372,000. In 1926-27 we only voted £71,000, as against £360,000 in Denmark. In 1927-28 we only voted £65,000, as against £340,000 in Denmark. I quote these figures to show that the Department is not being treated in the way it should be by the Department of Finance. Year after year, when the Estimates are presented, we find that there is a reduction on the previous year. I suppose that is not altogether the fault of the Department of Fisheries, but rather of the Minister for Finance, who does not place the importance on the fisheries which he should. I believe that there are big possibilities for the development of our coastal fisheries, and that larger sums should be voted, so that the Department of Fisheries would be able to help the fishing industry.

So much for the question of fisheries, as dealt with by the Minister and his Department. But the Minister, in the course of his speech, mentioned that the Committee set up to carry out the recommendations in the report of the Gaeltacht Commission were working with zeal and enthusiasm. That may be so, but the people in the Gaeltacht do not alone want to see the Committee working with zeal and enthusiasm; they want to know what the performances of the Committee have been, what recommendations have been put into operation, [703] and how much employment has been given in the Gaeltacht.

I think the Minister mentioned that he hoped to do something in the Gaeltacht for afforestation. Is the Minister really serious in that statement? Is he aware that for the last four or five years the Department of Agriculture has been spending thousands of pounds upon afforestation? Is he aware that they have acquired 50,000 acres of land and that they have planted 20,000 acres of these with millions of trees? And is he aware that, so far as the Gaeltacht in Tirconaill is concerned, not one acre has been acquired, not one tree has been planted, and that not one penny has been spent on afforestation? They are therefore not carrying out the recommendations made in the Gaeltacht Commission Report.

The Minister also made reference to reclamation and to the recommendations in regard to that matter. As far as Tirconaill is concerned, no work has been carried out in the way of reclamation. Deputy Clery made reference to the fact that recommendations were made to provide landing facilities round about the coast and in the islands round about the coast. Still, in many of the Irish-speaking islands off the coast of Tirconaill landing slips have not been provided.

Another very important matter referred to is the question of housing in the Gaeltacht area. We have been told by the President and by many Deputies sitting on the Government Benches that a great lot has been done for housing in the cities of Dublin, Cork and Limerick, but very little has been done, so far as housing is concerned, in the rural areas, and nothing has been done in the Gaeltacht. We were told that proposals for legislation would shortly be introduced in order to deal with the question of housing and the improvement of dwelling-houses in the Gaeltacht, but although these promises were made a long time ago they have not been carried out. Whether they were [704] election promises or not I do not know, but they have not been carried out, and it has been most unfair to the inhabitants of the Gaeltacht, many of whom are living in hovels quite unfit for human beings. The question of homespuns has been dealt with by the Minister in the course of his remarks. I notice he was very careful not to refer to the question of handspuns. I understand that when the Minister referred to homespuns he referred to what is known round Ardara as the homespuns manufactured in the mills.

Mr. Lynch: I distinctly differentiated between cloth made from homespun yarns and that made from mill-spun yarns.

Mr. Cassidy: At any rate, as far as the inspector who went to Ardara is concerned, the Minister states that that inspector is now in the centre of the industry. In the centre of what industry? Does the Minister mean that the inspector is in the centre of the homespun industry, because as far as the homespun industry or the handspun industry in the cottages is concerned, it is practically non est. It simply does not exist. The inspector who went there instead of endeavouring to develop both those branches of industry at the same time has given all his attention to developing the homespun industry in the factories. The Minister may think I am exaggerating, but that is not so. The people in Ardara are anxious to develop these cottage industries because they realise that a large amount of employment could be given if they were developed. If the Minister's Department was prepared to give Ardara the help and assistance promised and expected by the people, thousands of people would be now working not alone in Ardara but in Glenties, Killybegs, Carrick, and other districts.

A promise was made shortly before Christmas by the inspector and also by an official from the Department that a carder, a breaker and a dyeing vat would be sent to Ardara to re-establish or to rekindle [705] this industry. But nothing has been done with regard to that, and nothing has been done to give employment, although it was promised a number of years ago that the Government would do their best to develop the cottage industry. As far as that industry is concerned no employment has been given, although orders are coming in for hand-spun material. These orders cannot be executed owing to the fact that the people did not get the assistance promised and expected. The Minister referred to the fact that emigration is draining on the trained workers as far as the homespun industry is concerned. We all realise that. But does the Minister or the Executive Council realise that these people only emigrated because of the inactivity of the Minister's Department in connection with these industries? If these industries had been re-established and if proper and sufficient attention had been paid to them, those skilled workers would not be emigrating in such large numbers as they are emigrating, because they would be able to eke out an existence at home instead of having to go abroad to make a livelihood.

In that respect I might direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that there are in the Tirconaill Gaeltacht a few vacant factories, one at Annagry and the other at Crolly Bridge. I understand at present there are certain individuals negotiating with the Minister's Department to establish industries in these two factories and that suggestions as put up by the certain firms in this connection are at present under the consideration of the Minister for Finance. I hope the Minister for Fisheries, in view of the criticisms, proper criticisms and fair criticisms, expressed at it will do all he can to bring pressure upon the Minister for Finance to put up the necessary moneys to have those factories established so that some work can be provided for the people. I am sorry I am not in a position to congratulate the Minister or his Department upon the work they have accomplished. I certainly hope that in the coming [706] year something more will be done than has been done in the past, so that when the next Estimate for the Department of Lands and Fisheries comes up the Minister will be able to throw back his head, expand his chest, and exclaim: “See, something has been accomplished; something has been done.”

Mr. Law: Both Deputy Cassidy and Deputy White referred to the speed of the patrol boat, the “Muirchu.” I do not know what the speed of the “Muirchu” may be, and even if I did I would not tell it, for obvious reasons. Whatever the speed of the “Muirchu,” I am sure it is greater than the speed at which the various Governments in the past have dealt with the Gaeltacht, and particularly in this matter to which Deputy Cassidy referred, the protection of the fisheries. If the Minister goes into a certain room in his own Department he will find there a cartoon which was taken from the old “Weekly Freeman” and which commemorates some remarks I made in another place in 1908, that is to say, in the year in which the youngest of our present voters were born, in which this self-same matter of the insufficiency of the protection of our fisheries was raised.

In the 21 years that have since elapsed nothing very much seems to have occurred as far as industry is concerned. On the other hand I think the Minister last year said what seemed to me to be a very reasonable thing, that until we had really got our fisheries upon a proper basis it was not really worth while to put the cart before the horse by asking for the expenditure of money on further protection of what was at that time at